The fallout from the controversial interview given by Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy over anti-gay comments continues to build. While most business leaders work hard to keep their political and religious views from affecting customers or their business, Cathy came out swinging with comments saying that he runs the company according to Biblical commands and that he views gay marriage as a sin. The result has been national boycott, store protests, and most recently moves in major cities like Chicago to bar the restaurant. The suggested legislation in Chicago would be in my view unconstitutional. Despite our disagreement with Cathy, civil libertarians should defend his right to do business without harassment or censure from the government for his views. His company is subject to anti-discrimination laws. Those laws protect his employees from “Biblical” harassment.
The gay rights group Equality Illinois is launching a campaign against Chick-Fil-A – petitioning universities and lawmakers to evict the fast food restaurant from their campuses. There is also a plan for a “kiss-in” campaign by gay and lesbian couples outside Chick-Fil-A restaurants. The latter protests are perfectly constitutional. Indeed, Cathy decided to force this issue in his interview and should have expected that his comments would enrage some consumer while delighting others.
It is the plan of Ald. Proco “Joe” Moreno (1st) that crosses the line.
I would also oppose as an academic an effort to bar the restaurant at universities. Universities are institutions committed to free speech and free thought. To start to bar groups or businesses on the basis of the religious views of their officers runs against the mission of a university.
Cathy was stating his personal view of gay marriage. He magnified the controversy by extending those views to the company: “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
He seemed to double down on those comments despite the controversy and obvious cost of proselytizing to his business: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
Moreno is moving to block permits for a new business in Chicago. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has also vowed to block Chick-Fil-A from entering his city at all.
The suggestion that these cities would block a business because of the content of the religious views of one of its officers offends the principles of free speech and a host of constitutional protections. To the degree that the company violates discrimination laws, it can be punished and fined. In the meantime, the company is likely to loss millions in sales as well as protests from customers offended by Cathy’s comments. Just as Cathy elected to make his views public, customers have the same right. We can leave the outcome to the marketplace to work out.
Source: CBS
Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois:
As stupid and retrograde as the President of sludge-fil-a (light on the chic, heavy on the filla) is its rather pointless to attempt to regulate them based on that stupidity. These politicians would be better off saying they will chose not to patronize the place & encourage others to do the same if they feel strongly about it. Better they should regulate them for their horrific food practices and labor violations.
Discrimination laws do not protect anything but the most explicit forms of discrimination. Hiring employees is like choosing students for a university, it is possible to discriminate for one reason (say age or sexual orientation) while claiming another reason (say, “based upon their interview presentation, I believe this professor is subjectively a better teacher”).
If an employer does not want to hire blacks, they can claim that in their interviews they “read people” and try to find those they can communicate with best, that have the same “take” on the job.
If they hire a gay man and do not realize it until later, he is let go for the slightest transgression, or is first in line for a reduction in force.
Proving that sort of discrimination is difficult, and for the minimum wage workers it affects it isn’t likely to happen.
“While most business leaders work hard to keep their political and religious views from affecting customers or their business…”
**********************
My family has run a small business for 84 years. I remember when a local election got nasty and the merchants were choosing sides. One of the candidates asked to put a campaign sign in the window of the store. My grandfather agreed but not until he approached the other candidate. There they were, both signs hanging side by side in the window until election day.
I never learned a better lesson about business in any classroom.
Private corporations can do any homophobic thing they choose….. Cracker barrel is publicly traded…. They are subject to the SEC……. Just saying……
Mespo….. That’s a great lesson…..
What Mespo said. I agree that the City of Chicago’s proposed legislation is unconstitutional. I also agree that any City or group of people can get the message across to radical nut jobs like this, by just going elsewhere for dinner.
Hasn’t this alderman read Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution or United States v. Lovett? (Bills of Attainder)
Foolish is the CEO of the restaurant. As long as people are good, paying customers who cares what their life choices are? More customers = more profit. ‘Tis always better to bite your tongue rather than the hand that feeds you.
The arbiter will be which group results in the most profit, the bigots who go there because of his bigotry and hate or the people who are leaving (hopefully in droves)
(I was surprised when a local businessman put a gigantic sign in his window for people to sign his petition that the township manager should go. The sign read something like ( ) MUST GO!. It always surprised me that he did not worry about repercussions from this township manager and the township. That the sign remained made me proud of my little boro.
Daily Beast Andrew Sullivan
27 Jul 2012 10:47 AM
Emanuel And Menino: Liberal Bullies
I haven’t commented on the Chik-Fil-A issue because, well I was too busy enjoying Mitt in London. Which is another reason to celebrate the existence of Glenn Greenwald. Here’s a classic Greenwald post – full of OCD updates, relentlessly researched, thoroughly linked, addressing every single counter-argument. Let me just add one word: amen.
Intimidating a business because its chairman expresses his perfectly legitimate – if to me, misguided – views, should have absolutely nothing to do with a civil rights movement. Civil rights movements are about expanding freedom, including for those with whom we disagree. The impulse by some well-meaning heterosexual allies to ban or shut down or somehow use the power of the state to police thought in this way is simply anathema to what we ought to stand for. There is no contradiction between marriage equality and a robust defense of the rights of those who oppose marriage equality – including maximal religious freedom and maximal free speech.In fact, it is vital that we eschew such tactics, as they distract from a positive argument that has been solidly winning converts for two decades.
The point is that we all have to live together even while we passionately disagree. That toleration is the challenge of our time, and it goes both ways. If we gays now try to suppress others’ rights, we have become nothing less than what we have opposed for so long. And there’s a worrying tendency – more pronounced on the right than left, but still potent on the far left – not simply to oppose the arguments of the other side in a cultural debate, but to delegitimize them as people of equal standing. But calling a bunch of good-faith people bigots and leveraging government power against them is, in my mind, no morally different than calling a bunch of people perverts and leveraging government power against them.
No hate crimes laws; no restriction of the free speech of our opponents; no infringement on religious freedom; no delegitimization of the perfectly legitimate (if, to my mind, deeply flawed) argument that civil marriage be reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. Just equality. And freedom. If Emanuel and Menino want to know how a straight ally acts, look at Jeff Bezos. You can support civil rights by enlarging speech, not restricting it.
It’s just time for someone with some money to open a gay chicken chain — with a suitable logo — to go into competition with these nutjobs — and they should serve ONLY HETEROSEXUAL CHICKENS and make the ad campaign be: ONLY HETEROSEXUAL CHICKENS SERVED HERE.
And — better sauce, please. (Sauce for the goose)
Will pc universities boycott the Chick Fil A College Football Bowl game? It was fka The Peach Bowl
I’d boycott the place but I’ve never eaten there. I think the marketplace will decide. Banned in Boston wasn’t a good idea for books, it’s not a good idea for chicken.
Unfortunately this man’s interjection of his bigotry, uh, religious beliefs into the marketplace sets up one more area where people will be further divided with decisions on where to eat are based on a political/religious pov.
grammar police:
Unfortunately this man’s interjection of his bigotry, uh, religious beliefs, into the marketplace sets up one more area where people will be further divided with decisions on where to eat being based on a political/religious pov.
Both of these guys are now admitting that they were wrong.
http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1061148712
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/politician-plan-to-block-chick-fil-is-unconstitutional-legal-experts-say/#ixzz21lTynQHK
In response to the question “why is the polling data so often wrong when same-sex marriage questions are on the ballot,” I heard the comment that it is because there is little (or no) downside to telling people you are in favor, but the converse is not true. To me, this matter illustrates that point.
Neil, the cities may not be able to discriminate against any specific business, any more than they could a church, temple or mosque. However, they can pass ordinances requiring compliance with equal rights. A fast food restaurant then has the choice of complying or not opening a franchise. My guess is that the ownership of that particular chain would prefer to discriminate, based on their past public statements. I would like to be proved wrong, but not holding my breath.
Tony C., not to mention that they actually DON’T DO THAT at all. Many gay people have worked at CFA and continue to, and a lot of them have come out and said they never felt awkward or insulted by their employer.
Jude, this about far more than whether a gay person works at Chick Fil-A. A lot more. Here is a link to a CNN story posted about an hour ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/us/chick-fil-a-controversy/index.html
Do I dare, no I don’t dare interject a little make-believe reality into this dry discussion.
It starts with the franchise leasee, who has to keep his wife in diamonds and pay his costs and the fee.
He has two prospective hires to interview. One homosexual, one heterosexual.
End for this time. Uae your imagination. The rest is easy to figure out. Who got the FickenChicken job?
It isn’t a Hollywood ending.
EVERYBODY has missed the point. Mr. Cathy stated “HE” believes in a Biblical definition of marriage and that their business is run based Biblical Principles. At no time did he state they deny serving anyone. Those who are upset with Chick Fil A need to get their facts strait. Besides, what is wrong with believing the Bible? This whole episode is really an attack against Christians. Gays and Lesbians can’t ever get passed the reality that God doesn’t approve it and no matter what they do he will not change his mind.
More drama for CFA.
Chick-fil-A spokesman Don Perry dies as company battles controversy
Next up, a rain of frogs.
idealist707
make-believe reality (Doesn’t exist)
mespo727272
Have you ever thought that this issue is what drove many to the polls in Ohio in 2004 which gave Bush the victory? The more liberals bring this issue up, they do not realize the damage it does to them at the polls.
Jim,
Speaking of actual facts, the Bible doesn’t say anything about lesbians and it’s the Old Testament which hates on gays. You know, the Old Testament which was supposedly replaced by the teachings of Jesus who was all about love and acceptance. The teachings of Jesus who was against all of the Talmudic restrictions on behavior like those espoused in Leviticus.
Since you wanted to bring facts into the core of using a book of religion of justify hatred.
Jim, I do hope Mr. Cathy intends to marry his brother’s wife if his brother dies, and provide her with a son. Don’t know what he is supposed to do with his current wife. I guess bigamy is on the table.
Gene H.
You need to read Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
bettykath
If you knew anything about the Bible you would know that Jesus was tempted with this kind thing. He clearly stated that God intended for marriage to be between one woman and one man. He went on to make the case where divorce is permitted. Furthermore, your comments have no merit because Mr. Cathy can believe what he wants. Secondly, why don’t you check out how much money Chick Fil A makes in 6 days compared to their national competitors who work 7 days.
I have, Jim. Unlike you, I understood them.
If you mean Romans 1:26-27? You should know that not all Biblical scholars interpret that as saying anything about lesbians in the way that you mean. The people involved in the orgy in orgy in question were both former Christians and heterosexual. They are condemned as sinners not inherently because of homosexuality but rather because they went against their nature — their heterosexual orientation — by engaging in same-gender sexual behavior.
As to 1 Corinthians? If you want to take the word of Paul – who historically was likely a spy for the Romans – over the words directly attributable to Jesus found elsewhere in the Bible (and in the Gnostic Gospels for that matter)? You be my guest to worship that false idol.
Gene H.
You are right! Jesus said to love one another however, at no time did he say to accept the sin. Why don’t you read Revelation 21 and see who won’t make heaven. God loves them just the same but doesn’t like the sin.
Gene H.
You said ,” They are condemned as sinners not inherently because of homosexuality but rather because they went against their nature — their heterosexual orientation — by engaging in same-gender sexual behavior.”
That is exactly what a Lesbian is!!!!
Why don’t you read about the history of the Council of Nicea and the fierce debate about including Revelations in the New Testament in the first place because it was so utterly contrary to the teachings of Christ?
As to your inability to understand how to diagram a sentence, let me help you with that: The orgy participants in Romans were sinning because they were heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts against their nature, not because they were homosexuals engaging in homosexual acts. By the “logic” of Romans 1, homosexuals engaging in heterosexual acts would be just as much sinners as heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts.
I now return you to your previously scheduled attempts to weakly rationalize away your hatred under the guise of religiosity and display your own lack of proper understanding of the texts of your chosen religious traditions in both theological and historical contexts.
Gene H.
A heterosexual having sex with the same sex is NOT Heterosexual. Secondly, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Joel, Daniel, and all other Prophecies back up Revelation. If you actually read the Book then you would know that the world is following it exactly. Just an easy example would be the talk of a one world government.
Jim,
Let me heap a little Jesus love on you for now, I mean in keeping with loving all, EVEN sinners.
Most who scream the highest about homosexuality, if we define the orientation as a real phenomen, are AFRAID that they are perhaps, somewhere a homosexual.
If it would help I’d send the Youtumb clip. Hilarious. Musical too.
People who think that some mustical being can think and make moral decisions for them are…….pitiful.
Jim,
If you wish to follow the often hateful, contradictory and oppressive Pauline distortions of the teachings of Jesus instead of the inclusive and love based teachings of Jesus (i.e. worship the Bible instead of worshiping the teachings of Jesus) then that is a choice that is entirely yours.
Gene H.
You obviously didn’t read what I said. I said again for you, Jesus commands us to LOVE the sinner but Hate the sin.
Gene H. What you are doing is exactly what the Gays and Lesbians do. You are trying to get everybody to accept the sin but it won’t work.
Jim,
Historical contaxt counts for nothing. You agree of course.
It is all god’s will which rules for eternity.
Hope the irony is discernable to even Jim.
Oddly, God wrote on stone tablets for the Jews.
He could not incribe anything for the Christians.
Was he illiterate?
The only record of Christ is by a Jewish historian granted Roman citizenship. Probably a later clerical forgery.
is there anyone here who does not know of the proof of oral history, the round the circle one?
Well, funny God should rely on that technique for his word or Jesus ones, to be passed on to mankind.
The ways of the Lord…….the rest you know.
Jim,
Apparently you missed the part where I can think for myself.
As for what “everybody accepts”? That is their choice. I’m not trying to convince them of anything, but rather presenting information in context on which they can make their own decisions. However, your basing homophobia in the Bible as if it were the same thing as basing it in the teachings of Christ is both inaccurate and a false equivalence. In the meantime though, I won’t censor myself to sooth your ignorance about your own professed faith.
Gene H.
At least you now know what constitutes a Lesbian. You learned something new and deserve a pat on the back.
And at least you don’t know what constitutes a bigot, but you demonstrate what one is perfectly.
Good job.
Jesus would be proud.
Gene H
Where have I showed evidence that I hate anyone or am discriminatory?
“Gays and Lesbians can’t ever get passed the reality that God doesn’t approve it and no matter what they do he will not change his mind.”
This statement not only displays bigotry, it displays the hubris that you speak for God when in fact you are pointing to the words of men to rationalize your bigotry under the guise of religiosity. Either God is Love or He isn’t, Jim. But the idea that God loves everyone but is still going to punish some of them for eternity for disobeying laws made by men is ridiculous contradictory nonsense. If God didn’t approve of homosexuals, they wouldn’t be born that way (which is what science tells us).
Gene H.
Wrong! I am a teacher. I provide rules and consequences. When a student breaks the rule the get the Consequence. I didn’t give it to them but rather they gave it to themselves. I still love them which is exactly who God is-LOVE! Unfortunately, people want to live their way but not face any consequence. I am not a bigot but rather only pointing out the truth.
That’s an interesting theory, Jim, but your job isn’t to teach but rather try to tell people they are doomed to Hell because of what you read into the teachings of men that have nothing to do with love. If you were interested in love, you’d realize that love is love no matter if it is between man and woman, man and man or woman and woman.
But you continue to think you’re a “teacher” when you’ve already demonstrated you don’t understand your source material and, ergo, argue from ignorance.
It’s funny.
If God didn’t approve of homosexuals, they wouldn’t be born that way (which is what science tells us).
This is a lie to justify a minority political position. It takes the blame from them and puts it on someone else.
It is a good idea to be reminded sometimes. Jim, I am especially sending this your way.
Gene H.
Love is whatever you want it to be but it doesn’t change scripture one bit. Homosexuality and Lesbianism is an abomination and an unnatural act.By the way, Most Americans agree with this position which is why the Chick Fil A issue will mobilize Republicans and even Democrats to vote against Obama (2004 election in Ohio)
Yeah, Jim. It places the blame squarely on the person responsible for creating genetics and their role in determining the sexual orientation of complex organisms which would be the creator of the universe. What is his name again? Dog? Yahwell?
Yeah.
Otteray Scribe
The clip humorous true but unfortunately not one time did the President use the New Testament. Levitical law applied to the Jews. What is odd, though, is that both Old and New Testament speak against Homosexuality. By the way, I would have stayed seated.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-97909-000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2008/06/sexual_antagonism.html
Gene H
I hate to break it to you. You have free will and God is not to blame for your choices. He only laid out a plan and it is up to us to follow it with the understanding their are consequences.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111843.php
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/06/04/hate-pulpit-prompting-attacks-gays
I hate to break to to you Jim, but sexual orientation does not figure in to free will. Science tells us this.
Gene H
Those are theories not facts.
Gene H
Wrong! Science has nothing to do with pulling your pants down with another man. They do it with their own hands.
Actually Jim, you’re demonstrating that you don’t understand the scientific usage of the word “theory”. It is a fact that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation and that it cannot be changed. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
What’s funny is the pattern here. Whenever some Christian goes off on a homo hating binge like Mr. Chicken Pants, some clowns come out of the woodwork to defend bigotry against homosexuals and claim that not being able to freely hate on homosexuals without ridicule or consequence is somehow persecuting Christians. Very often in this forum, that person is named Jim or James or some variation thereof.
Coincidence or pattern in the data?
Your sexual orientation is not your choice any more than your eye color is, Jim.
If you want to be a hateful bigot? It is free will as to whether you choose to own your (unscientific and theologically questionable) choice or to try to rationalize it away so that it’s somehow okay or not your fault but “God’s will”. Again, if God didn’t want homosexuals to exist, then their orientation would not rest in genetics. You can blame the watch or you can blame the watchmaker, but the time is the time.
So are you saying that when a man sleeps with a man or a woman with woman it is science’s fault? If that is true then let me steal your car and blame science for it.
Hey Gene H, When Billy and George are done with each other do they say I am sorry but science made us do that?
OS,
I love that West Wing clip. Very appropriate for this discussion.
rafflaw
The clip was humorous but unfortunately not one time did the President use the New Testament. Levitical law applied to the Jews. What is odd, though, is that both Old and New Testament speak against Homosexuality. By the way, I would have stayed seated.
Gene,
If I told you once, I have told you a thousand times, it is not nice to bring scientific facts into a biblical discussion!
Jim:
Can you love the sinner and hate the sin?
Jim,
I would have guessed that you would have not stood for the President. But I bet you would stand for a bishop or cardinal who have hidden child molestors from the police.
Gene H:
I dont think the science is settled. There are probably people who are gay because of nature but then there are also people who are gay by nurture or by choice.
Jim,
I don’t blame science for the facts that it uncovers about how the universe operates. Science is a body of knowledge discovered by applying a verifiable/falsifiable testable methodology to reduce error known as the scientific method. It makes statements about the nature of reality based on empirical fact instead of irrational belief.
To blame science for homosexuality is like blaming science for the atomic weight of Boron.
That would be ignorant.
Almost as ignorant as professing to teach love but encouraging discrimination which is a form of oppression and ergo hatred.
But there you have it.
I’m confident that big city pols are playing to an audience and recognize that they cannot constitutionally prohibit a lawful business from opening an outlet due to the opinions of its owners. But their statements are also politically stupid because they provide more ammunition to those who have complained for years that liberals are engaged in a “war on religion.”
On the plus side, since Chick-Fil-A is predominately based in the southeast, a surge in purchases by fundamentalists to offset the boycott may well increase the incidence of heart disease in the conservative base to demographically offset the impact of voter suppression legislation in the South.
Perhaps we should view this glass as half-full.
Bron,
“I dont think the science is settled.”
Yeah, Bron. It pretty much is settled. Sexual orientation is rooted in genetics but environment helps shape the way it manifests. Kind of like flour by analogy. Under some conditions it makes a cake, under some conditions it makes glue, but the fundamental causal element is still flour and the formation of gluten.
Mike A.,
You are such a pragmatist and optimist and I dig that about you.
Bron:
My view is that science will eventually demonstrate that human sexuality is much like human personality: it’s a spectrum. However, I find your suggestion that people “choose” their sexuality a bit bizarre. I believe that people “discover” their sexuality at different stages of their lives based upon their biology and experience. I can choose paint colors for the dining room, but I can’t choose my sexual preferences in that manner.
“This statement not only displays bigotry, it displays the hubris that you speak for God” (Gene)
This reminds of a famous quote from a Texas congressman who was not joking when he said, in rejecting calls for the use of Spanish in local schools, “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for me.”
Those who understand the underpinnings of Christianity know that the Almighty has his own purposes. Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” The Bible is the ongoing saga of man’s struggle to understand God’s ways.
The pompous self-importance of the scribes and Pharisees as presented in the New Testament is constantly reenacted today by folk who in the end are doing nothing more than, as revealed in Jim’s writings above, playing politics and using The Almighty as a veneer for their own bigotry. “Christian values” are apolitical but Christians playing politics are dime a dozen posers.
OS, my favorite West Wing clip.
The bible is full of contradictions and folks like Jim are able to pick and choose, take out of context, or whatever to make their point. The more I learn of the history of the bible and its many translations by men, the less I’m able to give it much credence. Some history, skewed as all history. Some good ideas on how to treat each other, but even more ideas on how not to treat others.
Mr. Curry’s speaking out had little to do with faith. It was a political statement, perhaps to rile up the extremists and to further divide the country
For those who think that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice: Why would someone deliberately choose a “lifestyle” that brings out so many hateful bigots? Why would they choose a “lifestyle” that can get them beaten up or killed? Or have trouble getting housing or jobs? We’ve come a long way in recognizing that homosexuals, male and female, have rights, that their homosexuality isn’t a choice, but there is still hated and intolerance as witnessed in Jim’s posts.
So Jim, what morning did you awaken and say Hmmmm I think I will be heterosexual?
(interesting biblical verses Jim and explanation so you can easily understand how your reading of the bible leaves a lot to be desired.http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/105428587/homosexuality-and-the-new-testament
And by the way which translation do you rely on> Who knows what the original said, it has been translated, retranslated and translated from the translations so many times only G-d knows what he originally dictated.
leejcaroll,
Your comment reminded me of one of those “driveway moments” I heard on NPR. They were interviewing a professor of theology from a major university in North Carolina. The professor, who is also an ordained minister, had received an invitation from a local church to come and speak at a Sunday evening service. The pastor and church committee emphasized to the professor they believed in the bible, “as it was originally written,” and requested he keep that in mind when he presented his sermon. He was to preach the gospel as it was originally written.
When the good doctor got up and began speaking, the pastor jumped up from his seat behind the pulpit and tugged on the professor’s sleeve. “What are you doing,” he asked.
The professor replied that he was told they wanted the sermon delivered as the bible was originally written, so he was preaching in the Aramaic language.
He was not invited back again.
OS ((*_*))
Blouise,
It is funny how unchristian some Christians can be. I just can’t imagine Jesus not welcoming everyone who believes in him. No matter what sexual orientation they were born with.
Seems ot me that the more people tell you how christian they are the less they live it. Words are easy, behaving as what would Jesus want is a heck of a lot harder.
does chik-fil-eh close on the sabbath?
Mike Appleton:
I dont see why not. I guess you are a believer in the “a stiff dick has no conscience” school of sexuality and human behavior?
People make conscious and unconscious choices concerning sex and sexuality all the time.
Thinking sex devoid of thought is rather bizarre to my way of thinking.
No, Gene it isnt pretty much settled. There are many parts to human sexuality, to say that it is all traceable to a gene or genes is rather simplistic.
Pete, yes. they are closed on Sunday
Everyone knows that it is a sin to cook chicken in Crisco and not in Lard, even on the Sabbath. To invoke the Lards name against gays is quite insane. Mary was a virgin because Joseph was gay. So of course Jesus is the son of God. Not Joseph and there is the issue of artificial insemination. The chain is closed on Sunday because it is the day that sinners worship the sun. It is all very complicated. But I think I explained it all for the folks like the Chic Filet owners who went in dumb, come out dumb too, and have gay kids.
Bron,
I presented evidence in favor of what I say and nothing about what I said was simplistic about it other than perhaps your understanding of it. If you have evidence that sexual orientation is not rooted in genetics and shaped in manifestation by environment, present it. Otherwise, what you have is your opinion, ill-informed or otherwise. Just saying “the science isn’t settled” without proof never worked for you on climate change and it’s not going to work for you on sexual orientation either.
leejcarol
thanks, i wasn’t sure. i haven’t been to one since the 80′s. lotta money, little sandwich.
raf,
Christian values are quite simple and can be found in Mathew 25:35-36 : feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned, clothe the naked, and forgiveness of enemies and all others.
These posers need to stop thumping and open the book to the chilling words in Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (I know I’m repeating but those are chilling words indeed for a guy like Cathy who has spent his entire adult business life using the Almighty as a mere veneer to cover his own bigotry.)
There are so many contradictions in the Bible because it is a collection of stories regarding man’s attempts to understand the ways of God … and constantly failing. From Adam and Eve to Abraham to Job to the prophets to Paul … one goof-up after the other …
Gene/ Jim:
Either you accept a endlessly re-written, politicized, contradictory, cherry-picked first century manuscript detailing how the universe works or you don’t. Personally, I believe you are as silly to think this book maps onto reality as you would thinking the same of the Rigveda of Hinduism or the Grecian Aeneid. These were primitive people trying to make sense of a world they could not hope to master or even understand. Thus any attempt to find any prescriptive value in such a work must necessarily involve its philosophical as opposed to its literal value.
Fundies like Jim want the world laid before them with an owner’s manual. Sorry but whichever deity ruled the roost, didn’t provide one. And there is nothing in any of the texts to show even one scintilla of awareness of the future. Sure the modestly named John the Divine, in the Bible’s faintly psychedelic book, Revelations, could predict that:
7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces.
8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth.
9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle.
10 They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months.
But it would take a fine imagination to conclude he was referring to modern attack helicopters as some do today. I’m not aware of any 5-month delayed detonating Hellfire missiles.
Bottom line is that if you want to convince anyone about the perils of homosexual lovemaking you’d be wise to base your argument in science and logic rather than the quaint but childish, “because the Bible tells me so.”
If we are going to live by some ancient text which will it be since both the Rigveda and the Aeneid regard homosexuality as valid expressions of human love?
bettykath
Gays were in the closet remember. This is why they were not beaten up. Most of that started when they wanted to come out of the closet. They want us to be tolerant of them but they are not tolerant of our views if they do not align with theirs. Like you for example, You don’t want me having my opinion if it is not yours. Your Problem is that the majority of Americans profess to be Christian and do not want Gay marriage. North Carolina !!!!!
Blouise:
I like to quote this passage to our sanctimonious friends. Call me an imp:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matt. 7 (KJV)
Jim:
Actually, I like California better to all that “Carolina in the Pines” business!!!
Jim:
“Gays were in the closet remember. This is why they were not beaten up. Most of that started when they wanted to come out of the closet.”
*********************
You need a history book or maybe some life experience or maybe just to get out more. “Rolling queers” was sport for the Neanderthal crowd when I was in grade school in the 60s — well before the Gay Rights movement was popular.
MESPO
Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.
The day of Elijah’s supernatural departure from Earth was predicted unanimously—and accurately, according to the eye-witness account—by a group of fifty prophets (2 Kings 2:3-11).
Science has proven the earth was once covered by water.
We have the Dead Sea scrolls.
The translation of Revelation 6:8 in the King
James Version reads: “And I looked, and
behold a pale horse.” The Greek word that
was translated ‘pale’ is chloros. Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance gives the definition of
chloros as “green or pale.” The word chloros
is the root word for chlorophyll, the pigment
in plants that make them green. Knowing
this, we have to ask if the passage shouldn’t
really have been translated “Behold a green
horse.” The New Revised Standard Version
of the Bible actually renders the passage: “I
looked and there was a pale green horse.” ISLAM
Red Horse Communism
mespo727272
Who is judging? This conversation is about stating what the Bible says on marriage. That is all! The problem Gays and Social Liberals have is not with people like me but rather the Bible. They can’t change it.
Ding!
What ! no cute girl in the arena between rounds? I would have expected such in this contention. Keep up the debate all
The bible is but one of many religious books. Which one is the Truth? Only those who do not pretend to judge or oppress any person or group of persons. That narrows it down a LOT.
Those who use the bible or any other book of faith as an excuse to oppress another are no better than than moral cretins.
“The problem Gays and Social Liberals have is not with people like me but rather the Bible.”
No, Jim. The problem “Gays and Social Liberals” (you do realize Jesus was a social liberal, don’t you – but I digress) have is precisely with people like you who misuse a book of parables to rationalize hatred and bigotry while professing to be all about Christ who was about love and acceptance, not bigotry. The problem isn’t the Bible, Jim. The problem is the hatred in your heart you wish to excuse by using “the word of God” as your rationale when the Bible is not now nor has it ever been literally with word of God . . . unless you’re a crazy person, Jim. That Fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Bible is a 20th Century construct created by men to control other men. For the bulk of the history of the Bible, it was taught and understood, correctly so I might add, as a book of parables. If you don’t know what a parable is, let me help you with that. Webster’s defines “parable” as a noun meaning “a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle”. Like Aesop’s Fables. Like Torah. Like the New Testament. Like the Quaran. Trouble only comes about when the imbalanced cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy such as when people take parables to be literal truths or the literal words of a divine being. This is a hazard of not understanding what you read within the proper philosophical and historical context.
Jim,
Last time I looked, the Constitution does not mention the bible anywhere. In fact, the closest it comes is the part where a test of faith cannot be used as a disqualification for elective office.
What I find funny (in the sick sense, not the humorous one) is how some use the bible as a weapon, but decry the possibility that Islamic Sharia law might find its way into our system. Hypocrisy does not seem to bother some folks.
Jim:
“Who is judging?”
********************************
That would be you. The Bible holds no more validity than any other ancient text. You just like it better. Like Jefferson, I’m not into all that blood, gore, and slavery talk.
If you want some Biblical predictions gone awry here’s my list:
From the “rumors of my demise are premature” file:
Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river [Nile] shall be wasted and dried up.
From the “never happened” file:
Ezekiel 29:10-11 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.
Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Hey y’all, don’t say that the Bible did not anticipate modern times! That’s not fair. I mean, right in the story of Sodom and Gomorroah you have a Biblical law against rubber-necking. Remember? Lot’s wife turned to a pillar of SALT! If you’re on your way somewhere, and something happens that isn’t your business, do NOT stop and gawk at it, keep moving, or you’ll be SORRY!
Without beltways and traffic jams, how did the Bible know to prohibit rubber-necking, huh? HUH? See!
Everything is in that book, everything! You just have to know how to find it.
Darren Smith
1, July 27, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Ding!
What ! no cute girl in the arena between rounds?
———————————————————————–
Hey! I’m cute and Gene is downright adorable!
Blouise:
Seconded.
MESPO
Isaiah 19:18 This will happen in the millennium
Ezekiel 29:10-11 The 40 years did happen. It took place during the 70 year captivity Israel had in Babylon.
Matthew 24:34 This has not happened yet but will right before Christ’s return.
Isaiah 17:1 This happened by the Assyrians. (Proof-Isaiah 7:1-25, 8: 3-4,
II Kings 16: 5-18
Matthew 1:22-23 This surely happened with birth of Christ.
mespo,
Back to the Opening Ceremonies which have been … rather boring but then nothing could surpass 1992:
Jim 1, July 27, 2012 at 10:13 pm
mespo727272
Who is judging? This conversation is about stating what the Bible says on marriage. That is all! The problem Gays and Social Liberals have is not with people like me but rather the Bible. They can’t change it.
————————
Is this really about what the bible says? Or is it about civil rights? Marriage in this country was a civil rite/right, not a religious rite. It still is. Religions have jumped in to have their own services but marriages still aren’t recognized unless registered with the state, with or without a ceremony.
And, yes, Jim, you are judging. You are judging who should have the civil right to marry based on your own faith, one that is not shared by a large number of people. Should your faith trump the 14th amendment to the Constitution?
It probably does for you, but your faith doesn’t give you the right to take away the civil rights of others. You and Mr. Curly certainly have the right to not marry someone of your own gender, but you do not have the right to prevent others from exercising their own right to marry whomever they wish.
And the part I really don’t understand is why so many people of “faith” are so afraid that someone else’s marriage will diminish their own.
Otteray Scribe
What does it matter if the Bible is not mentioned in the Constitution? The first item in the 1st amendment is Religion. That clearly shows its importance. At that time the Bible was really the only book used and the country was made up of mostly Christians.
Blouise, thanks for the clip. I’m trying to remember where I was in ’92. Don’t think I had TV then either.
bettykath
You are wrong!! Marriage is a state right. (10th amendment) By the way, how many states have voted down gay marriage? To answer your last question: We Christians believe that blessed is the nation whose lord is God. A nation who embraces that which God calls an abomination will only bring judgement upon itself. This is what Mr. Cathy was saying and it is true.
All this “protection of marriage” stuff is hyperbolic bigotry. The average heterosexual married person should be more concerned about the good looking hetero person who lives down the street than the gay couple. I never heard of a gay couple breaking up a hetero marriage, but I have heard about the handsome milkman…..
OS, we have to be of the same generation. The handsome milkman is an historical figure that the younger folks wouldn’t know. Or you listened to your elders talk of him : D
Jim, You are correct that the marriage laws are made state by state. If you will recall, it was the Supreme Court that struck down state laws that prevented people of different races from marrying in Loving v Virginia on the basis of the 14th amendment. The bible was used as the excuse for the anti-miscegenation statutes. Maybe we need another trip to the Supreme Court.
bettykath, I am definitely old enough to remember both the milkman and ice delivery man. The younger generation has a different focus. I was talking to my older daughter earlier and she went on and on about the handsome police officer who patrols her neighborhood. She spent quite a bit of time talking about his cologne and how great he smelled. Hmmmm…..
Well, she IS divorced, or I would be concerned.
os, the lure of the uniform………….
Jim,
Again you abuse a document. The first words of the 1st Amendment are “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, not “Congress and the United States shall follow the dictates of the New Testament”. The Founders did think religion was important. They thought it was so important that it should not be dictated by government and that people should be “free [to] exercise thereof” according to their conscience, not your imaginary Biblical mandate of your particular (mis)interpretation of Christianity. You cannot use the mechanism of government to force your religious values on others, Jim. If you want to argue about that, I’ve got the plain wording of the Constitution backed up by over 200 years of jurisprudence as well as the personal writings of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson that says you’re flat out wrong.
This isn’t a Christian country no matter what you believe, Jim.
It’s a secular nation run by a secular government and it is this way by design.
Jim sez: “What does it matter if the Bible is not mentioned in the Constitution? The first item in the 1st amendment is Religion. That clearly shows its importance. At that time the Bible was really the only book used and the country was made up of mostly Christians.”
***********************************
Jim, you really need to spend more time studying real history. Many of the Founding Fathers were agnostics. They were very well educated and it was common to be schooled in the classics….written in the original Latin. The fact is, the First Amendment starts off with “religion” because the country was founded on the basis of freedom of religion. I know this is hard for you to wrap your mind around, but freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
One of my 10x removed great grandfathers was a Huguenot who got out of France one jump ahead of the hangman’s noose or burning at the stake. He wanted nothing more than to be left alone to worship–or not–as he chose. The Huguenots were hated and persecuted by the Church and the Pope for questioning doctrine and refusing to blindly obey the dictates of the RCC hierarchy.
As for the Bible being the only book around to study, that is simply not true. I am sure there are persons today who would like it to be so, just as some Islamic purists would like the Koran (Q’uran) to be the only book people are allowed to read. Unfortunately, we have this nasty thing called education and the Internet where people can find out all kinds of things that conflict with their preconceived notions and what they hear in the church, temple or synagogue. Many, if not most, of the Founders were lawyers. At least one was a noted scientist, printer, author and diplomat. They were not ill educated country bumpkins who only read the bible.
Let me just leave you with this, repeated for reinforcement purposes: Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
Jim,
To echo Gene’s statements, this is not a Christian country. It is not a Jewish country..it is not a Hindu country..it is not a Muslim country. It is a country that allows all of those religions to flourish and it also allows all non believers to believe as they like. What you want is the American version of the Taliban where religious law controls every aspect of the government. Guess what? You are out of luck.
I remember the milkman and the breadman. If my mother was busy and I was outside I could always talk the milkman into a free quart of chocolate milk. The breadman had tiny sample loaves that he gave to the kids on his route.
By the way, many small community newspapers still in existence today were started by milkmen as a way to get customers from their competitors and expand their routes.
I remember the iceman with the leather over his shoulder to protect it from the block of ice. He came to the back door. I never saw the milkman. He came too early. The cream separated from the milk. When it was really cold the cap would be pushed up exposing a bit of the cream. We would frequently go a few blocks away to pick up bread from a woman who baked on Fridays. You could smell it all through the neighborhood. I didn’t know that about the newspapers. It’s an interesting tidbid to check out.
A bit off topic but speaking of bigotry, an interesting admission:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/
excerpt:
In the debate over new laws meant to curb voter fraud in places like Florida, Democrats always charge that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of liberal voting blocs like blacks and young people, while Republicans just laugh at such ludicrous and offensive accusations. That is, every Republican except for Florida’s former Republican Party chairman Jim Greer, who, scorned by his party and in deep legal trouble, blew the lid off what he claims was a systemic effort to suppress the black vote. In a 630-page deposition recorded over two days in late May, Greer, who is on trial for corruption charges, unloaded a litany of charges against the “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” in his party, including the effort to suppress the black vote.
In the deposition, released to the press yesterday, Greer mentioned a December 2009 meeting with party officials. “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,” he said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. He also said party officials discussed how “minority outreach programs were not fit for the Republican Party,” according to the AP.
————–
A tidbit from the article
Current Governor Scott has defended the purge, even though he was erroneously listed as dead himself on the rolls in 2006.
Jim:
“Isaiah 19:18 This will happen in the millennium
Ezekiel 29:10-11 The 40 years did happen. It took place during the 70 year captivity Israel had in Babylon.
Matthew 24:34 This has not happened yet but will right before Christ’s return.
Isaiah 17:1 This happened by the Assyrians. (Proof-Isaiah 7:1-25, 8: 3-4,
II Kings 16: 5-18
Matthew 1:22-23 This surely happened with birth of Christ.”
********************************
Oh, Jim your childlike faith would be precious — if you were a child. Setting aside the things that you assure us will happen (we can hold our breath), let’s look at the ones that have:
1. According to you, Egypt was uninhabited by people and animals for 40 years while the Hebrews (there were no Israelis) were held captive in Babylon. That would be 598 BCE to about 538 BCE. During that time in Egypt, we know Nekau Ii began construction of the canal from the Red Sea to the Nile between 610 – 595 BCE. The Persians invaded in 525 BCE and were finally ejected in 404 BCE by the Macedonian king, Amytravios. King Dauius completed the canal from the Nile to the Red Sea between 510-497 BCE. The Hebrews were out of Persia by 520 BCE so at no time during their stay was Egypt uninhabited by man or beast since we have a fairly good historical record from the Egyptians and the Assyrians of the human activities in Egypt.
2. Destruction of Damascus by the Assyrians. Not one word about the destruction of Damascus or it losing its status. Just a king taking the city and clearing away some seaweed from an altar. The history is that in 732 BCE Tiglath-pileser III, an Assyrian, took Damascus and killed Rezin. He did not destroy the city but used it as a base to conquer more Syrian cities. Though Damascus was later eclipsed as the major city in the Mid East by Baghdad, it never ceased to be a city.
3. The savior born in Bethlehem was not named “Immanuel” as prophecied but rather as “Jesus.” The name only appears in Isaiah as prophecy and in Matthew as fact. Neither are true according to the Bible itself.
bettykath
considering what scott looks like that doesn’t surprise me.
bettykath,
re: the newspapers … they’d usually write little articles about births, deaths, marriages etc and pass them out to their customers … just community gossip stuff. I know of several here in Ohio. Sometimes they’d hire young boys in the neighborhoods and pay them a penny for every ten copies they delivered … single sheet newspapers with a form on the bottom to sign up for that particular man’s route.
Blouise, They would be a treasure trove for genealogists if they managed to survive. There might be better sources for births and deaths, but not the gossip. A woman in PA found diaries of an ancestor. My great grandfather and his father are both mentioned. Great grandfather courted her sister Jan-Apr. She married someone else before the year was out. He married my great grandmother the following year. Diary also mentions great grandfather’s sister by her nickname, which we did not know. My fb page is getting pictures from hs classmates of do-you-know-what-this-is. The younger folks don’t have a clue, but I know what they all are. (sigh) Yes, this is way OT but I’m tired of the bible talk. Mespo has a good handle on it.
————-
Pete, lol
Otteray Scribe, that video clip from the Left Wing (oops, I’m sorry, WEST Wing) TV show has a pretty lengthy diatribe of Biblical misinterpretation. The willfull ignorance of the understanding between Old Testament Law and New Testament Grace is staggering. The actor goes on to cite several examples of Old Testament Law, while completely ignoring how the OT Law was done away with, in effect “nailed to the cross” in the New Testament. We’re no longer under OT Law. Someone seems to have forgotten to inform this guy in the video clip.
It’s interesting to observe in the light of the Chick-Fil-A “controversy” that they’ve experienced an increase in customers lately. Our local restaurant here in town has always been busy, but it’s been observed lately, that it’s more busy than usual. The drive-thru line almost circles the building twice.
Looks like the militant homosexual agenda and their whining like a spoiled little child has only helped business for Chick-Fil-A. Keep it up.
Bettykath,
Interesting tidbit about Gov. Scott!
Humbert Cumberdale:
“We’re no longer under OT Law. ”
*************************
Well, somebody had better tell Jesus not to worry about all those jots and tittles:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matt. 5
Hey, Humbert have you ever read that book?
Hubert (sorry about the prior typo):
“Our local restaurant here in town has always been busy, but it’s been observed lately, that it’s more busy than usual. The drive-thru line almost circles the building twice.”
**********************
Like I told you before, bigots have to eat somewhere.
I was in a fast food chain on Sunday about one in the afternoon. The place was packed with people wearing Sunday go to meetin clothes. As I watched them pray over the food before they ate it I thought it a wise idea. You would not believe the fat food that these fat slobs in JC Penny costumes were eating. I prayed over my cheeseburger and grits before I portaked too.
Just to be on the safe side.
Hubert, one of my best friends is a Jewish doctor. Tell your Old Testament theory to him. I have not asked him to read your comment yet, but already know what he would say about the OT not being operative any more. I know his style. He has a dry sense of humor, so will probably say something to the effect, “Yer funnee!”
Gene H:
“Just saying “the science isn’t settled” without proof never worked for you on climate change and it’s not going to work for you on sexual orientation either.”
It isnt settled now is it. And there is certainly much debate as to human activity causing said climate change. No one debates climate change, because climate has been changing for millions of years.
To say sexual orientation is the result of a couple of genes is simplistic. Just as saying climate change is the result of man is simplistic.
I dont even have to present evidence to the contrary about sexual orientation being solely the result of genetics because there are other human behaviors which have a genetic and environmental composition to them. Human beings are blank slates and are easily programmable, I believe personality is set by around age 5. Jesuits say “give me a child until he is 7 and he is mine for life”.
There are many factors which influence human behavior and human sexual behavior, so to say as you did; “Your sexual orientation is not your choice any more than your eye color is, Jim.”
is just wrong.
Bron,
An assertion without proof is still just your opinion. Also, learn to read. “[Sexual orientation] is rooted in genetics and shaped in manifestation by environment” is not the equivalent of ” sexual orientation is the result of a couple of genes”. False equivalences will get you nowhere. Also, no one ever said climate change was solely caused by man. That’s a straw man and illustrative of your propensity for binary thinking. It’s also the exact kind of logical error you are making in this instance.
No one.
Said.
Solely.
But you.
Get it?
However, that being said, sexual orientation is rooted in genetics and shaped in manifestation by environment. This is what the science tells us. This is what the science tells us whether you like it or not.
Until you have proof that this statement is wrong and not just your opinion (which, by the way, is simply a restatement of what I’ve said but denying the role of genetics), you’re still just blowing smoke. Your sexual orientation is no more your choice than your eye color is factual. If your Aynish ego worship wasn’t getting in the way of your understanding of what science is telling us, you might get a clue. Not everything about humans is an operation of their choice as driven by their ego. That’s pure narcissistic nonsense.
Now get some proof that sexual orientation is not set by genetics and shaped by environment or run along.
Proof mind you. Not “what [you] believe”.
Gene H:
you said your sexual orientation is not your choice, that means it is all nature. Slice it any way you want but that is what you said.
It has nothing to do with AR. There is a genetic component to human behavior but there is a good deal we can control.
If you would give up that slavish devotion to liberal victim-hood and see that many people are in a situation because of their own actions maybe you would see that government cant cure all of the worlds problems.
But then that would mean you have to give up your ego driven narcissism that compels you to think you can cure the problems of humanity with other people’s money.
“Researchers from Queen Mary’s School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm publish their findings in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality – the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex.
And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here – heterosexual behavior is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.”
Bron,
Still no proof, but I’ll let that slide for a minute.
You obviously didn’t read a single one of those articles I posted to so I’ll explain the science to you.
Sexual orientation is not your choice. “What” or “who” you want to copulate with is set by genetics. It’s not malleable, changeable or “curable”. How that manifests is shaped by environment. Example: child predators. They are, despite misconceptions to the contrary, usually heterosexual. They were born that way. What makes them in to child predators are environmental factors, in their specific cases, usually being victims of child abuse themselves. Example: false asexuals. In ancient Greece and Rome, there was no stigma to homosexuality. It was simply an accepted part of human nature. As time moved on and societies changed, so did the sexual mores of society and a prejudice against homosexuality grew into predominance. As such, those born homosexual or bisexual often adopted professions that endorsed an asexual lifestyle like the priesthood or convents. They did this as a matter of survival in a hostile environment, but they were still homosexuals and bisexuals, just either not practicing or closeted. Example: wife beaters. They are born heterosexual, but what makes the behavior of violence against women both prevalent and accepted is the social environment in which those persons were raised in and/or continue to live in. Consider the example of Saudi Arabia versus the U.S. – heterosexual males treat their heterosexual female counterparts considerably different in both places but those behaviors are shaped by environment. Their orientation isn’t.
This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with government, economics or your Aynish fantasy life where the only determining factor in a person’s life is their ego. This has to do with science and what facts science tells us about human sexuality. If you don’t like those facts? That is your problem. For someone who is supposedly about “individual freedom”, you are sure anxious to endorse non-scientific reasoning that bolsters those who would oppress people based on their sexual orientation because “it’s a lifestyle choice”. Again, showing that Randian Libertarians are all talk and no walk.
Sexual orientation is fixed by genetics and how it is expressed is shaped by environment.
Deal with it or find some proof that statement is wrong.
Or continue to mistake your opinions for facts and let your theories dictate how you pick your evidence instead of the totality of the evidence dictating your theories.
You’re good at that.
Bron,
Apparently in your zeal to cherry pick, you can’t comprehend what I’m saying.
No one.
NO F**KING ONE.
Said “single gene” or “solely”.
But.
You.
Straw man fabricating jackass that you are.
Also, link if you’re going to cite.
Genetics Has A Role In Determining Sexual Orientation In Men, Further Evidence
Genes Help Determine Women’s Sexual Orientation
I don’t think the “genetics versus environment” argument is anywhere near resolution with respect to sexual preference, unless something has taken place in the last decade that I totally missed — which is not impossible. But here’s a little (very little, admittedly) extra data: It’s probably not possible for a heterosexual woman to decide to be lesbian instead. Years back, as a joke, I announced to a small group of friends, “I wish the Hell I could switch to lesbian and that way avoid the whole man/woman thing forever; it’s so f*cked up already, and it’s so much easier to find good women than it is to find good men!” Although everyone laughed and recognized it as just another one-liner in my arsenal, one of my dear friends (heterosexual woman with a list of bad choices in her love life) actually decided to switch over but couldn’t.
She reported sullenly: “I tried to get cured but I couldn’t.”
Another friend of mine, a gay man, asked me once why I hadn’t tried to remarry or at least to get a part-time man, and I answered: “Oh once you have a man in your life, you have a source of unending intolerable trouble in your life,” and he said, “TELL ME ABOUT IT!”
In any case, a genetic predisposition isn’t a prerequisite of providing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Then again, you back a political philosophy represented by a party who chose a guy as their Presidential candidate who would do away with Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Malisha,
Not only is it not possible for someone to change their sexual orientation, both the AMA and APA have both said trying to do so is a bad idea.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.page
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx
Some are just finger licking good while others have to wash.
Gene H: DAMN! You mean I could’a done it? DAMN!
(Even if it WAS a bad idea, so what? I’ve done lots of other things that were plenty bad ideas!)
I think Romney would have a go at the 1864 civil rights amendment as well.
Gene,
I don’t understand what you are trying to say? Can’t you be more specific?
raff and Malisha, our Gene is just the shy and retiring type. He has trouble coming right out and saying what he means. He can’t help it, it is probably a genetic condition.
OS,
You are spot on. It must be genetics!
There is a mutation in my “Wallflower” gene.
That’s an understatement Gene!
Jim1,
You are wrong!! Marriage is a state right. (10th amendment) By the way, how many states have voted down gay marriage?
Jim my parents were first cousins. In Pa it was illegal so they went to NY and the marriage was sanctioned.
Whats your point? That the states who have passed same sex marriage are an abhorrence before G-d but those that have not voted it in are ok with the Lord?
I am so glad you are able to speak for Him (I am sure this has been quoted in the thread but for Jim it bears repeating (maybe a lot)
1 Corinthians 2:11 >>
New International Version (©1984)
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
How’s this for weird: Perry died unexpectedly!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57481594/chick-fil-a-public-relations-executive-dies/?tag=re1.channel
Liberal Defenders of Chick-Fil-A Unwittingly Defend Corporate Personhood [Updated]
Lee Fang on July 30, 2012
The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169147/liberal-defenders-chick-fil-unwittingly-defend-corporate-personhood-updated
Excerpt:
Chick-Fil-A’s financial support to anti-gay causes has gone on for years with little commotion outside the LGBT activist community.
But that changed earlier this month when Dan Cathy, CEO of the fast food chain, told the Baptist Press that he is “guilty as charged” for pushing the company to take a stand in the national debate over marriage equality. Those comments set off a backlash—including boycotts, protests and politicians’ denouncing Chick-Fil-A. In Chicago and Boston, the mayors of each city fired off statements claiming the chicken sandwich joint is no longer welcome in town. The backlash, like any charged political debate, is now setting off its own backlash.
Liberal commentators Glenn Greenwald and Adam Serwer are leading the contrarian charge, claiming that mayors opposed to the construction of new Chick-Fil-A outlets are setting a “dangerous” precedent for violating the First Amendment:
• Mother Jones’s Adam Serwer (7/26/12): “Blocking construction of Chick-fil-a restaurants over Cathy’s views is a violation of Cathy’s First Amendment rights.”
• Salon’s Glenn Greenwald (7/26/12): “But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ top executive on the desirability of same-sex marriage.”
• Boston Globe editorial (7/25/12): “But which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.”
If the activist-led uprising against Chick-Fil-A were simply about the CEO’s views, I would agree with these comments. The debate, however, centers around how Chick-Fil-A and its business affiliates spend direct direct corporate cash on supporting anti-gay causes.
Here’s the real issue. Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s family manages a charity called the WinShape Foundation, which dispenses millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations, including Focus on the Family. Where does that money come from? According to tax disclosures, the WinShape Foundation received $8,067,161 from Chick-Fil-A corporation and $11.5 million from CFA Properties, a corporate affiliate of Chick-Fil-A registered in Delaware in 2010.
mespo7272721, July 28, 2012 at 7:49 am
Humbert Cumberdale:
“We’re no longer under OT Law. ”
*************************
Well, somebody had better tell Jesus not to worry about all those jots and tittles:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matt. 5
Hey, Humbert have you ever read that book?
=======================================================
Hey mespo…. Read what you quoted in Matt. 5:18. “…till all be fulfilled”. What, or more suitably, WHO fulfilled the OT Law. Jesus – the one you’re mocking.
Hey mespo, ever read things in context?
mespo7272721, July 28, 2012 at 7:50 am
Hubert (sorry about the prior typo):
“Our local restaurant here in town has always been busy, but it’s been observed lately, that it’s more busy than usual. The drive-thru line almost circles the building twice.”
**********************
Like I told you before, bigots have to eat somewhere.
======================================================
Ah, I see… if you don’t have the politically correct worldview and you choose to voice your opinion, exercising the first amendment, it makes you a bigot.
Of those who pride themselves in “tolerance”, isn’t it ironic how those same people are not tolerant of differing opinions.
Otteray Scribe1, July 28, 2012 at 10:15 am
Hubert, one of my best friends is a Jewish doctor. Tell your Old Testament theory to him. I have not asked him to read your comment yet, but already know what he would say about the OT not being operative any more. I know his style. He has a dry sense of humor, so will probably say something to the effect, “Yer funnee!”
=========================================================
Someone Jewish doesn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah. So the OT Law hasn’t been fulfilled and they are still under OT Law. It’s not an Old Testament theory. When read in context, the OT and NT, we can learn that Jesus fulfilled the OT Law, in effect, nailing it to the cross. We are now under NT Grace.