For once, you are absolutely correct and being slammed for presenting the truth. There's science and then there's junk science.
Isn't it just a chicken sandwich...a really good chicken sandwich?
- Thread starter Tulsa Tom
- Start date
He said that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. DOMA had a provision that did not allow the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages even when states did. When the Supreme Court struck that down, he tweeted that it was a sad day for the country.
If there is "believing in traditional marriage" without wanting the government to deny marriage to gay people, without being angry when those laws are struck down, Cathy was not that.
Thanks for responding... As I stated, I wasn't sure how Cathy had spoken directly about it. I can agree that that takes it to another level.
I support traditional marriage, but I don't get my knickers in a twist over this issue. I Have no problems with gays being afforded the same rights as straights. Where I will have a problem is if the government steps in and says my church must allow gay marriages to occur there. If that happens, I would hope that the same people calling for the rights of gays would also recognize the rights of churches and religious bodies in this matter as well.
Sorry for taking so long to reply. Like I said, I have a lot going on, plus I wanted to step away so as not to get drawn into a fruitless argument with someone who evidently thinks it is a productive debating technique to belittle, insult, and attempt to bully someone who disagrees with him. The ignore function is a wonderful thing, but I digress . . . . .
To answer your question: the authors contend that one cannot have a clear thinking and reasoned debate about gay marriage unless there is an understanding on both sides of what marriage really is. They therefore seek to define what marriage is historically (their contention is that it is a monogamous, life long, comprehensive union between one man and one woman), why that is important to a healthy society (which is why governments have always done things to promote traditional marriage - ie. tax breaks, etc.), and how "changing" that definition results in all kinds of problems on all kinds of different levels. I would note that marriage has already largely been redefined from its historical understanding with the advent of no fault divorce, etc., etc., and that changed understanding has resulted in societal ills such as much higher divorce rates, a higher number of illegitimate births and children living in one parent homes, and all the negative impacts those things have on graduation rates, levels of drug and alcohol abuse, incarceration rates, mental health and on and on.
They do contend that opposite gender couples are a vital aspect of what marriage really is and therefore do not believe same sex couples should be allowed to marry because that's not what marriage is. However, they do believe that there are things that can be done in order to assure that property rights, hospital visitation rights, etc. can be afforded to same sex couples.
In regards to my previous posts on the whole "gay gene" contention: from the author's perspective, it is irrelevant to whether or not a marriage between two people of the same sex is truly a marriage or not. It's really more or less irrelevant to me, too. Just don't like it when people say that there has been a study that definitively proves the "gay gene" when there hasn't. But, again, I digress.. . . . .
I would really encourage you to read their work. They obviously do a much better job laying out their arguments than I could ever hope to. It is availble on Kindle for about $9 and isn't a very long read. If you do read it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Thanks again for the cordial exhange. Wish I had more time for it and wish I ran into more people willing to conduct themselves with the charity that is necessary for a fruitful exchange of ideas.
Oh, and I love Hemingway.
God bless.
Thank you for the truth . A Good Voice for sure. But a voice for a particular denomination. Not a voice for the majority of American Christians.
Innerestin', ya know those dadgum cunserviteeve red neckers need to done get themselves edumacated so they can pull them ol' common sense heads out of their...well you know where, and git wit da' program already!
Perhaps as the process of enlightenment
and the immense broadening of ones horizons takes hold, they will then recognize that their sordid behavior directed at otherwise tolerant, coexisting individuals is toxic and distasteful. Their inherent avarice and greed when challenged leads to hostility masquerading as righteous indignation. Oh, the humanity! (Tongue in cheek and attempting to illustrate that we probably have more similarities than differences. Let's start with the heart.) Go Big Red.
I am having a huge conundrum on whether I should like this or not.
P.S. I do think the one study that Hoosker cited was of great value. It was the one that was beginning to narrow down the area on the genome where there did seem to be correlation with sexual orientation.
Frankly, one of the theories is that there can be some mild fluidity to orientation AND that we should think about sexual orientation on a scale from largely homosexual to largely heterosexual. If this is true, then this theory just MAY fly in the face of a definitive gene that controls orientation.
Last edited:
Easy enough to find online:
On June 16, 2012, while on the syndicated radio talk show, The Ken Coleman Show, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer (COO) Dan Cathy stated:
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". 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.
The following month, on July 2, Biblical Recorder published an interview with Dan Cathy, who was asked about opposition to his company's "support of the traditional family." He replied: "Well, guilty as charged." Cathy continued:
"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. ... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
The day after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Cathy tweeted, "Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies." The tweet was subsequently deleted, but was archived by Topsy.
In March 2014, Cathy said he regretted drawing his company into the controversy. He told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he has been working with Shane Windmeyer of Campus Pride since 2012. The article noted that WinShape and the Chick-fil-A Foundation had "dramatically" cut donations to groups same-sex marriage supporters consider anti-gay.
"As I stated earlier, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com, is a strong proponent of same-sex marriage, giving millions to the cause. If the vocal minority of Bible believing Christians on the campus raised the same pressure to UNK, would UNK ban Amazon.com deliveries from campus? Of course not, and why should they? Amazon hasn't broken any laws and does not discriminate in its business practices. Neither does Chic-fil-A."
The majority of these posts read like sour grapes to me.
Any sort of democracy, whether its a student body or a the USG writ large, has enough levers and knobs that an active minority group can gum up the tyranny of the majority. Its a weapon actively used by both sides (see the current GOP fit over the SC nominee).
The left has been very active, and very successful in getting people:
a. Committed to a cause
b. Selflessly donating time to get off the couch and do something for that cause
Now there's no reason that the Right cannot achieve those same goals. In fact, the Right right now has lots of people committed to causes from Pro-Life to anti-same sex marriage, but for whatever reason the Right has not been nearly as effective in channeling the grass roots into effective policy changes.
Nine times out of ten, you'll get a comment out of a conservative blogger towards a "libtard" that "I run a business/have a job, I got stuff to do, and you hipsters sit around and be unhelpful and smoke pot and campaign for same sex marriage and that's just un-American". If conservatives were better at getting guys like that to put effort into real policy change (instead of spending all his time running a business or whatever he's doing), I have no doubt that conservative efforts would see more outcomes in their favor. In short, where is the conservative equivalent of an ACLU or other types of organizations? A handful of people picketing an abortion clinic once or twice a year from a church, is not the same thing as getting left leaning lawyers to donate pro-bono time for in essence their entire life to make Cause XYZ happen. If we are going to be too busy to go change policy, then we have little right to complain when someone who puts in the time and effort to do so, does so in a manner we don't like.
We see this all the time. Conservative politician from say Nebraska goes up on tv, says local government is better than directives from Washington. State cheers him on as speaking truth to power. Then the most overwhelmingly Republican state in the Union in the last 60 years, basically doesn't give a crap about local elections, and the liberals all get voted into the school board anyway. So then you have a situation in many states, where liberal policy choices reign in education, despite the fact that 90% of their voter base is Republican.
3/4 of the country identifies as Christian. Half or so of the nation are amenable to GOP viewpoints. If there is a reason that secular socialists are molly womping us in policy, I'm pretty sure its not their fault.
The majority of these posts read like sour grapes to me.
Any sort of democracy, whether its a student body or a the USG writ large, has enough levers and knobs that an active minority group can gum up the tyranny of the majority. Its a weapon actively used by both sides (see the current GOP fit over the SC nominee).
The left has been very active, and very successful in getting people:
a. Committed to a cause
b. Selflessly donating time to get off the couch and do something for that cause
Now there's no reason that the Right cannot achieve those same goals. In fact, the Right right now has lots of people committed to causes from Pro-Life to anti-same sex marriage, but for whatever reason the Right has not been nearly as effective in channeling the grass roots into effective policy changes.
Nine times out of ten, you'll get a comment out of a conservative blogger towards a "libtard" that "I run a business/have a job, I got stuff to do, and you hipsters sit around and be unhelpful and smoke pot and campaign for same sex marriage and that's just un-American". If conservatives were better at getting guys like that to put effort into real policy change (instead of spending all his time running a business or whatever he's doing), I have no doubt that conservative efforts would see more outcomes in their favor. In short, where is the conservative equivalent of an ACLU or other types of organizations? A handful of people picketing an abortion clinic once or twice a year from a church, is not the same thing as getting left leaning lawyers to donate pro-bono time for in essence their entire life to make Cause XYZ happen. If we are going to be too busy to go change policy, then we have little right to complain when someone who puts in the time and effort to do so, does so in a manner we don't like.
We see this all the time. Conservative politician from say Nebraska goes up on tv, says local government is better than directives from Washington. State cheers him on as speaking truth to power. Then the most overwhelmingly Republican state in the Union in the last 60 years, basically doesn't give a crap about local elections, and the liberals all get voted into the school board anyway. So then you have a situation in many states, where liberal policy choices reign in education, despite the fact that 90% of their voter base is Republican.
3/4 of the country identifies as Christian. Half or so of the nation are amenable to GOP viewpoints. If there is a reason that secular socialists are molly womping us in policy, I'm pretty sure its not their fault.
One additional point. From 2001-2006 the Right had control of both Houses of Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. Basically, we were handed Ed Orgeron and Tosh Lupoi and Kevin Steele.
If we had cared to set the terms of a new Contract with America where healthcare, welfare, and social policy were done smartly, that was the time. Instead, we got a series of campaigns from 2000-2008 (and really one could go back to Hilary-care in the early 90's if one wanted) where we said "healthcare isn't an issue" despite voter insistence that it was, and a complete disconnect from Americans wanted out of their govt. We paid dearly because the American people turned to the only people who seemed willing to play ball, and we didn't like the terms of the contract Obama wrote. We are now trying to fix things (marriage, healthcare, etc) after the fact.
And you know what they say about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure.
The politicians in his own party don't even like him. He can rant and rave all he wants, but he's going to need the majority of 535 people as friends.
People thought Dubya was going to privatize SS too.
It would be a riot for sure.
Part of me thinks the USG would just run itself more or less as it already does, more than ever before, as varying dept heads are like "uhm, yah..."
Please... Let me be the first to inform you that every study on gay participants will be considered "junk science" then. The reason why? Because whether you choose a scientific publication or a gay magazine to recruit, you can't fully eliminate the possibility of bias in these types of studies. Many studies on human behavior will be similar. But even studies on OCD, depression, or anxiety can be measured by patient surveys.
There's no baseline in any of these studies to compare final results to. There is no way of implementing crossover or double-blind protocol, which is what generally indicates a strong study. You can't run the participants through a placebo segment of the study and then an active drug segment of the study.
With a study of this nature, there are only two real qualifiers. Is the person an identical twin? Is the person gay? There is no real protocol that would eliminate study participants for having a pre-existing condition.
In most clinical studies, you have a quantifiable metric to monitor (mm of mercury, parts per million, mg., etc..). This study offers nothing of the sort. It simply compares genetic markers of gay identical twins, of which there is a positive correlation.
To truly determine if environmental pressures have an impact on sexual orientation, gene coding would need to be done on identical twins when they were in the womb. By the way, after thinking about how genes respond to environmental pressures, I would agree that over many generations, these pressures could alter gene structure and expression.
Trump is not invincible. He may win the nomination, or heck even the Presidency. However, he is an outsider. Outsiders take some time to get rolling and/or get the right people on their side once they get into office.
He's not going to just dictate. His force of personality will carry him a little, but not real far when it comes down to real official business.
Dubya performed probably the last real act of sheer Presidential will power when he kept the war in Iraq going a couple years longer than it otherwise would have, but even that came to an end right quick despite 9/11 and his 90%+ approval at one time.
And therein lies the problem with Washington, regardless of which side you're on. It's sooooo big that it has taken on a life of its own.
This was more or less true in Washington's day though.
The President is an important man. He get's up early, takes a leak like the rest of us, eats, maybe workout, gets a CIA brief on the goings on around the world. And then he's in meetings all day or travelling.
How much time does a guy like that have to ping on any one department in say Department of Agriculture? Basically zero, most Federal departments will never even see the President, and if he does come, its a "hey Sir here's all the cool stuff we do and thanks for being a great boss" type of deal. Its not really business.
Even when you consider the President is outsourcing large portions of his executive control to lower people on the rung, how much time in a given day does a guy him have to get involved in the "day to day" type of stuff through them. Virtually none still.
If you are in the Social Security office, and your President just got elected on the back of reforming SS, then you can probably expect a little more requests for stuff than normal, but it would be the rare occasion when the guy is just all up in your Kool Aid except for maybe the guy/gal who runs your agency (who again, you pretty much hear from a couple time a year in a town hall or email).
DING DING DING we have a winner! Dem or Rep its all the same, get us fighting over Chic-fil-A while they dismantle the Republic. Career politicians get money from lobbyists to follow orders. The fact that a corporation is now a person shows the complete lack of reality we have in gov't. Can GE get jury duty? We need to reanimate Ike 34!
And this is just my opinion, but most of the politicos are way more bravado on tv then they are in the seat. When you run a campaign you have to appear like the smartest man/woman in the world, I have all the answers, here's my 300 point plan etc.
When they get behind the chair, the relationship with Federal agencies is often times less dictatorial than the public would assume (not always, but often), and is more "I'm driving this great ship of state and I need major help, feed me info please".
I've had pro-defense Republicans and Dems on military related committees show up in Afghanistan not having any idea about the war or how its being run whatsoever. Dog and pony show, speech on tv, then we're back to business when they leave. Its kind of mind boggling really, that we could be at war most of a decade and the people supposedly over seeing it have little clue about what's going on.
Edit: Maybe not totally mind blowing, but still.
But, do you want one person to have that much influence when presiding over 320 million people?
EDIT: Either I'm seeing things or something looks like it changed in your post. Did it initially say something like "no wonder a president can't make changes overnight" or something to that effect?
Last edited:
Only if it's my guy.
But seriously, goes to show how overgrown and gridlocked our tax-based government has become.
The times, they are a changing, though. Lately we've taken to electing politicians that campaign on a "no compromises" platform. Then, when we are facing a government shutdown for the zillionth time, we wring our hands in angst. We shouldn't hold those politicians any more responsible for gridlock than ourselves for electing them. No one wants to hear it, but the government doesn't function without compromise (even Republican Saint Reagan understood this).
As for the President, that individual gets assigned far too much credit or blame for the issues of the day. We're not a monarchy, yet we hold our President to standards as if they were a King.
The real concern for me is that this year, far more than the past, the race for President has exposed our nation's fears, hostility, overt and passive racism, and lack of education. To be fair, almost every other country deals with the same thing. But this year, there's a big white spotlight shining down on the ugliest parts of our society. The rest of the world is definitely taking note.
I would agree with you. In the case of Trump, I sure hope you're right...because if he had the same amount of bravado if he were to win the presidency, we would be at war with 4 or 5 countries within that critical first 90 days.
On the issue of gay marriage here is my over-inflated two cents.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Not all religions treat gay marriage with same prickly pear that Christianity does. Heck, even Christianity is not unified in a gay marriage position one way or the other.
Gays have filed a secular charge that putting them in a special no-marriage box is discrimination under the law. Most of the outcry against them marrying is rooted in evangelical Christian teachings as the act is an "abomination against God". Is there any reason for the State to side with that particular religious viewpoint, in a nation that codifies exercising all religious view points?
To date, I think the anti-same sex marriage caucus has done a poor job of answering that question. The lawyers on that side of the aisle basically exhibit a blank stare, because the major reason to pick the Christian viewpoint is not secular but religious, we Christians want to follow Christian teachings and please God, but that doesn't easily translate into a State sponsored goal without basically declaring the US a "Christian Sharia" country (ie Christ's law is the basis of our law). Which fundamentally breaks Amendment 1.
One other wrinkle, that I have heard has been brought up by lawyers and other varying arguments. If the major Christian viewpoint is that same sex marriage is an abomination to God, or breaks Christ's law, then why have we chosen to make a stand at gay marriage? Child abusers and rapists are an abomination to our Lord, and we have no problems marrying them. Deniers of Christ are an abomination to God, so why do we allow Hindus, Jews, and Muslims/insert religion here to marry?
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Not all religions treat gay marriage with same prickly pear that Christianity does. Heck, even Christianity is not unified in a gay marriage position one way or the other.
Gays have filed a secular charge that putting them in a special no-marriage box is discrimination under the law. Most of the outcry against them marrying is rooted in evangelical Christian teachings as the act is an "abomination against God". Is there any reason for the State to side with that particular religious viewpoint, in a nation that codifies exercising all religious view points?
To date, I think the anti-same sex marriage caucus has done a poor job of answering that question. The lawyers on that side of the aisle basically exhibit a blank stare, because the major reason to pick the Christian viewpoint is not secular but religious, we Christians want to follow Christian teachings and please God, but that doesn't easily translate into a State sponsored goal without basically declaring the US a "Christian Sharia" country (ie Christ's law is the basis of our law). Which fundamentally breaks Amendment 1.
One other wrinkle, that I have heard has been brought up by lawyers and other varying arguments. If the major Christian viewpoint is that same sex marriage is an abomination to God, or breaks Christ's law, then why have we chosen to make a stand at gay marriage? Child abusers and rapists are an abomination to our Lord, and we have no problems marrying them. Deniers of Christ are an abomination to God, so why do we allow Hindus, Jews, and Muslims/insert religion here to marry?
I think the difference between Trump and your run of the mill politician like say a Rubio, would be that Trump has an over inflated sense of self, and probably views his crowning as some sort of true divine intervention.
Trump currently is all flash and no substance. I don't think he actually has a policy for anything yet, he certainly displays zero defense prowess. While I think the military would welcome him being more aggressive on the whole, the actual process of making a widget is going to have to be explained to him quite thoroughly, and the Pentagon is pretty good at steering the wickets themselves (see Syria and the absence of a ground invasion).
I do think we get caught up in the "Party of Reagan" or "True Reagan-ite" thing way too much as the GOP. None of these clowns are Reagan, and it has nothing to do with how far right they are or where they perceived him to be.
None of these clowns has the guts to stand alone and lead through compromise and wheeling and dealing for the greater good that he did.
The GOP has taken the worst strategy imaginable. Lets run witch hunts on our own politicians and voter base in the name of ideological purity (kind of antithesis of "getting the most votes to win") and basically swinging for the fences on a home run ball everytime they come to bat. I think the DNC has shown them small ball is the way you win the game.
I think our founding fathers screwed up when they wrote "We the people..." instead of "We the lobbyists of said politicians that were elected to represent the people (snicker, snicker)...."
The entire system is like a really bad joke (and has been for at least 60 yrs...). Lot's of baloney involved to make this thing work. Most people find contentment for themselves somewhere in that BS process. It's easier than you think to control people when you are the rules...
GBR
The entire system is like a really bad joke (and has been for at least 60 yrs...). Lot's of baloney involved to make this thing work. Most people find contentment for themselves somewhere in that BS process. It's easier than you think to control people when you are the rules...
GBR
Disagree there. Look at North Korea, they piss off everyone they can, but don't get attacked. Bar fights start from trash talk. Wars require rather more fuel to the flames.
Trump would get absolutely wrecked in a general and the GOP knows it, but the base they've courted won't vote for Rubio, who is the most electable option they've got. They are lying in the bed they made, and IMO the moment they tapped Palin for VP was the point of no return.
All I know is, contemporary sentiments are...if you prefer a really good burger or BLT, you must hate the chicken sandwich and the farming operation that made said sandwich possible. Anti-poultite.
I know. I'm just (mostly) joking on Trump. I'm with jflores on this. The guy hasn't outlined one definitive policy on anything yet, and he has over 40% of his party's support. Just mind-boggling
I go back and forth between finding it fascinating, hilarious, and terrifying.
This guy will go down in history as having one of the strongest cabinets ever.
Isn't more mind boggling that the only way one side has any support is because they offer free stuff? Isn't that the least bit embarrassing?
You are correct. Liberals can deny it all they want but the general is going to be a tsunami. People that say they won't vote Trump are only saying that to Avoid the Leftist mob.
When the time comes, they will pull Trump and it's showing.
The Left is notoriously lazy voters. They only turn out for a trendy cause and HRC ain't it. Unfathomable one could vote for someone that will more than likely be indicted.
Look at Liberal turnout so far. Trump has more votes by 1/3 than Romney had at this point in 2012 and he hasn't hit anything near critical mass yet.
It. Will. Be. Glorious.
You really think he will get elected? Like...seriously in the real world that actually exits?
