-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The Thank God For Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was “record-setting.” Pastor Rick Warren tweeted that Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-fil-A, called him with the good news. The Culture Warriors are positively giddy. But, is this level of sales sustainable?
According to YouGov’s BrandIndex’s Index score, Chick-fil-A’s perception among consumers dropped nearly 26 points since Cathy made his anti-LGBT remarks. In the South the Index score plummeted from 80 to 44. The biggest drop occurred in the Northeast where the score went from 76 to 35, a drop of 44 points.
The YouGov BrandIndex is a measure of brand perception created from thousands of daily consumer interviews. Brand perception is based on quality, satisfaction, reputation, value, general impression, and willingness to recommend.
A proper sampling would include all ages, genders, and ethic groups, but would focus on 18-34 year olds. The later demographic is important for growth of new customers. The older, white Christian conservative demographic, who has rallied in support of Cathy’s remarks, is declining.
The 18-29 year old demographic favors gay marriage by a whopping 63%. If Chick-fil-A wants to alienate this demographic, it would be like committing corporate suicide. Since Chick-fil-A is a private company, its sales figures can be kept secret. It is likely that Chick-fil-A’s plummeting brand perception will be reflected in sales.
While Cathy is free to offer monetary support the Family Research Council, designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, people are also free to withhold support form Cathy by not patronizing Chick-fil-A.
Gene
Thanks for the input.
Tony C.,
My question is not directed toward those who oppose (or are disgusted by) homosexual acts, but rather to those who have no tolerance for those who are so opposed. If someone is genetically predisposed to find any given behavior abhorrent (i.e., they were born that way), to me, chastising them for that would have to be wrong.
Personally, I don’t care whether you (or anyone else) engages in homosexual behavior or “gay bashing”, whether by choice or by birth.
@mahtso: Doesn’t that necessarily imply that some people will have genetic traits in which they are predisposed to find homosexual behavior offensive or even repulsive?
Let me ask you a question that should make your question moot: Do you believe your behavior or rights should be restrained because some other citizens find your behavior offensive or even repulsive?
I do not believe how other people feel about behavior should have any bearing on its legality. To me, legal questions come down to objective harm, or at least risk of harm (like DUI laws, fire codes, workplace safety laws).
But I do not consider “feeling bad” or “feeling disgusted” as an objective harm, I do not think we have a right to never be offended by anybody else’s actions. That would eliminate all freedom of speech and religion, for example.
One good day of sales is nice, but they’ll never continue to get the bigotted customers who showed up specifically for the purpose of supporting Chick-fil-a to show up on a regular basis… They’re down by nearly 50%, one day ain’t going to help them.
Tony,
Good point(s).
************************
mahtso,
I think the answer would be yes given the nature of the amygdala. If you don’t recall, there have been many discussions where the topic of structural differences in the brain between conservatives and liberals have come up and this points the way to your answer. Science shows that self-identifying conservatives have a larger amygdala (an area of the brain active during states of fear and anxiety) while self-identifying liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex (a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity). Some people are born with a predisposition to both engage in binary simplistic thinking and fear and loathe “the other”. This, of course, only presents a problem when you realize that many of our problems as a species are rooted in both simplistic thought and irrational fear and loathing of “the other”.
“Orientation is a spectrum of behavior set by genes and how that manifests is influenced by environment (examples previously given). That is what science tells us. If you have proof to the contrary, present it.”
Doesn’t that necessarily imply that some people will have genetic traits in which they are predisposed to find homosexual behavior offensive or even repulsive? I am not trying to be flip, I really would like to know. (I don’t have to try, it comes naturally, it’s in my genes.)
Bron,
Obvioiusly you don’t.
Penetrance is the quantification of a particular allele within a population.
For recessive gene impacts on phenotypes within an individual one has to make use of a Punnett Square with the understanding that recessive alleles can only manifest in a detectable phenotype when the genotype is homozygous and never when the genotype is heterozygous.
Gene H:
“This goes to show you have no idea how recessive genes work, Bron.”
I understand how recessive genes work. I even know about penetrance, which I think is actually what you are speaking of.
@Bron, Gene: A person’s genes are not the only determinant in gestation. One of the key differences between men and women is brain organization. This can be revealed on various brain scans that measure the amount of oxygen burned in various parts of the brain, but the most definitive way of measuring brain organization is through the study of the effect and recovery of strokes that kill small localized areas of the cortex.
In such studies, men and women fall into two distinct groups. Men that have strokes tend to lose a handful of individual abilities, and permanently, but their other abilities are unaffected. Women that have strokes tend to lose a significantly larger number of abilities, but then recover most of them.
That interpretation is given support by the oxygen-usage scans; when solving problems, the activity in a man’s brain is highly localized, but for the same problem the activity in a women’s brain is much more distributed. So, if you use a completed jigsaw puzzle as a metaphor, in the women’s brain the stroke takes out twenty pieces at random from all over the puzzle, but because each missing piece is in context, it is possible to make a new piece of the right shape and design to fit there, so recovery can take place. The new piece might not have the original chunk of picture, but the lines and colors can line up, so it looks to a fresh eye like a complete recovery.
For the man, however, the twenty pieces are all together, and leave a large hole in the puzzle. Reconstruction becomes impossible, the edge is not enough for the repair crew to guess what used to occupy that hole with any accuracy, so the content is permanently lost.
Now all of that is about men and women. What is interesting is that the pattern is reversed among life-long, self-identified homosexuals of either gender. Lesbians are affected by and recover from strokes much like heterosexual men, and male homosexuals are affected by and recover from strokes much like heterosexual women.
That brain organization (localized or distributed) is laid down very early in gestation. The localized version has been traced to a surge of a hormone called androsterone, a precursor of testosterone, during an early phase of brain development; while the distributed version seems to be the “default” mode when there is no such elevation of androsterone.
The androsterone surge leaves other biological markers in development, one of these is a preferential extension in growth of the ring finger versus the index finger. In heterosexual men and women, the male ring finger is slightly (but statistically significantly) longer than the index finger; this can be seen with the naked eye for most men (mine is 6% longer). For heterosexual women, their ring fingers and index fingers are the same length.
However, that trend does not hold for life-long self-identified homosexuals, in women their ring finger is slightly longer than their index finger, and in men, their ring finger is hardly extended at all versus their index finger. These are indicative of the presence of an androsterone surge in the development of a fetus with XX chromosomes (female gender) or the lack of an androsterone surge in the development of a fetus with XY chromosomes (male gender), the opposite of the pattern we see in fetuses that later identify themselves as having life-long heterosexual romantic attractions.
This reversal of androsterone surge may be due to genetics, but crucially, it may be due to genetics in the MOTHER, not in the fetus, because the mother’s genes (and blood) also affect the development process. (In fact results just this last year suggest a genetic difference in the mother’s of gay children that is not always passed on to the children themselves, which may explain the difficulty in finding a “gay gene” by looking for the gene in gays themselves).
The difference in the androsterone surge may also be environmental or nutritive or related to the health or physical activity of the mother during gestation.
So my first point is that I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that people’s sexual preferences, when they are free to choose, are developmentally determined in the womb. I do not argue that preference is impossible to deny; I believe many a homosexual has chosen heterosexual marriage and had children out of a sense of duty and cultural expectations.
I do not think that “born this way” is a good basis in and of itself for legalization; psychopathy is also a “natural” development.
I think it is a strategic mistake for gays to focus on whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, because the real crux of the issue is civil rights: Even if it were a choice, what harm does it do to anyone that is not ALREADY legal for a heterosexual to do?
A heterosexual can choose to deny their parents grandchildren. A heterosexual can engage in oral or anal sex. Even when it comes to society and the notion that homosexuals are less likely to have children; heterosexual couples can choose to have no children, or fewer children. (and contrary to that notion, many lesbians choose to bear children, and many homosexually-oriented men have impregnated women, and some gay men would like to adopt and raise children).
To me, the question returns to the power of government, and I do not think we should let the government engage in moralizations. I believe in the separation of church and state, and I think this kind of moralization is too close to faith to permit the government’s involvement.
I do not think there is an objectively measurable unique harm being done to another person by gay marriage, or gays adopting children, or engaging in sexual relations, and thus I do not believe those acts should be legally denied to homosexuals. The harm is no greater than a person consciously choosing to marry an opposite-sex partner they know is incapable of having children, for whatever reason.
“But I can say, based on the climate, if there is indeed a gay gene, there will be far fewer gays in the world unless of course they are born to anti-abortion Christian parents.”
This goes to show you have no idea how recessive genes work, Bron.
I dont have a problem with homosexuality being due to nature, I am just saying not all gays are gay because of genetics or some type of occurrence during gestation.
But I can say, based on the climate, if there is indeed a gay gene, there will be far fewer gays in the world unless of course they are born to anti-abortion Christian parents.
So I am not sure it is necessarily a good idea to look for a “gay gene” at least at this point in our evolution as a society.
Mespo,
I agree with your thoughts about the Koch Brothers while you are in your “library”!
Gene H:
It doesnt matter whether or not it is a choice or something that is part of a persons genetic inheritance, in one case it is up to the individual and in another it is not. Either way, a persons choice or nature should be respected.
The only reason there are people who want to try to change homosexual behavior is because some homosexuals have asked for help. You cannot, in a free society, grab a person off the street and change their sexuality without their consent.
“I dont think that free will is absolute, we do some things reflexively. So to say I think free will is an absolute is wrong.”
Then why do you have such an issue with orientation not being a matter of free will? Sexual attraction can be measured by involuntary responses like BP and pupil dilation. If it were totally voluntary, these kind of reflex actions governed by the autonomic nervous system would not occur.
“I dont think you can say that all sexual orientation is based on nature.”
Let’s ignore for a minute that it’s not what I say, but it’s what science says and examine instead what part of “how it manifests is influenced by environment” didn’t you understand? Orientation is a spectrum of behavior set by genes and how that manifests is influenced by environment (examples previously given). That is what science tells us. If you have proof to the contrary, present it.
“Frankly I am not sure why it matters so much to you.”
Because you’re using bad science to repeat a meme used by those who would oppress homosexuals based on it being “a life-style choice” instead of a relatively determined genetic characteristic. Again, arriving at a correct conclusion is only half the battle and although your conclusion comports with liberty and equity in this case, how you get there is wrong and capable of misuse by the enemies of liberty and equity. It is in fact enabling one of their key arguments in favor of oppression. That’s why it’s important.
Gene H:
I dont think that free will is absolute, we do some things reflexively. So to say I think free will is an absolute is wrong.
But I do think that we have control over much of what we do. I dont think you can say that all sexual orientation is based on nature. Frankly I am not sure why it matters so much to you. I doubt every heterosexual is naturally heterosexual and I doubt every guy in prison who had anal intercourse with another inmate is gay.
I provided evidence before on another thread, Bron. You provided nothing but your unfounded opinion, as usual. I’m not going to repeat myself to assuage your ignorance. If you have proof sexual orientation (not its manifestation) is malleable, present it. I’m sure the AMA and the APA would be very interested.
Gene H:
“You don’t know enough science to know that those people you think are making a choice effectively fall in to the spectrum of bisexuality and their behavior one sex preference over another gives the illusion of choice.”
And neither do you to know the contrary.
((*_*)) Patric and sorry about the double negative meant.And if you think your sexual orientation is not biologically determined then please tell at what point in your life you awakened and pronounced, “think I will be a hetero (or homo) sexual? )
Chick-Fil-A will now incorporate a huge turd in its corporate Logo……
Damn it, Lee.
Stop coming up with these ridiculously hard questions.
It causes migraines.
http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible?c=la2
(And if you dont think your sexual orientation is not biologically determined then please tell at what point in your life you awakened and pronounced, “think I will be a hetero (or homo) sexual? )