- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Money
Mike Huckabee Launches 'Support Chick-fil-A Day' for Aug. 1, 2012
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- Former presidential candidate and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says he is "incensed" at the way Chick-fil-A has been treated in recent days, and he is launching a nationwide Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day for Aug. 1, urging people to visit the restaurant that day or to make their support known via social media.
The company has been the source of criticism -- and the object of calls for boycotts -- since its president, Dan Cathy, was quoted in a Biblical Recorder article and in a radio interview as standing up for the biblical definition of marriage. Baptist Press re-posted the Biblical Recorder interview.
On Monday (July 23) the Jim Henson Company -- makers of children's shows such as "The Muppets," "Sid the Science Kid," "Dinosaur Train" and "Pajanimals" -- announced it would not partner with Chick-fil-A again in the future. The Jim Henson Company, at various times, has supplied the toys for the restaurant's kids' meals.
"The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors," a statement read. "Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD [Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]."
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino went as far as saying he would work to block a Chick-fil-A from opening in the city. Although there are 1,600 Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide, Massachusetts so far has only two. Gay marriage is legal in the state.
"Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston," Menino said according to the Boston Herald. "You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against the population. We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion. ... And we're not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the [expletive] the name is, on our Freedom Trail."
The Freedom Trail is a path through the streets of Boston highlighting historic sites from the time of the Revolutionary War.
Huckabee says Chick-fil-A's supporters need to speak up. He has launched a website, www.ISupportChickFilA.com, where people can "RSVP" that they intend to participate Aug. 1.
"No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate," Huckabee wrote on his Facebook page. "The goal is simple: Let's affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1. Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we're considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant.
"This effort is not being launched by the Chick-Fil-A company and no one from the company or family is involved in proposing or promoting it."
Huckabee concluded, "There's no need for anyone to be angry or engage in a verbal battle. Simply affirm appreciation for a company run by Christian principles by showing up on Wednesday, August 1 or by participating online -- tweeting your support or sending a message on Facebook."
Huckabee said he has "been incensed at the vitriolic assaults" on Chick-fil-A since Cathy made his comments.
"The Cathy family, let by Chick Fil-A founder Truett Cathy, are a wonderful Christian family who are committed to operating the company with Biblical principles and whose story is the true American success story. ... The Chick-Fil-A company refuses to open on Sundays so that their employees can go to church if they wish. Despite the pressure from malls, airports, and the business world to open on Sundays, they still don't. They treat customers and employees with respect and dignity."
Asked about the company's support of the traditional family, Cathy said in the Biblical Recorder story, "Well, guilty as charged."
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
Chick-fil-A's stores are closed on Sundays and the company, he said, "operate[s] on biblical principles." The media storm grew larger when a June 16 radio program was spotlighted in which Cathy underscored the need for children to have a mom and a dad.
"As it relates to society in general, 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,'" Cathy said on "The Ken Coleman Show." "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about."
The company issued a statement Thursday (July 19) telling its customers that "going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena" and that its tradition is "to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender." It also noted it has applied "biblically-based principles" to business management and will continue to do so.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Of course, the only way to
Of course, the only way to show your support of bigotry and hatred of the gays, is to go to Chic-Fil-A, spread those buns and gobble some cock, get some sauce all over your face and swallow. :P Good job guys, this sounds like the usual republican freudian complex.
"How do you know so much about everything?'" was asked of a very wise and intelligent man; and the answer was "By never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant." - John Abbott (1821-1893)
Just spit balling here, but
Just spit balling here, but maybe gay marriage is the answer for all the unwanted pro-life babies.
The underlying problem with
The underlying problem with gay marriage is tolerance. Politicians are completely useless as they will throw support behind whoever has the largest voting base. Tolerance breeds these disgusting excuses for human beings called liberals. Liberals are akin to teenage children that want what they want right now regardless of the consequences with no amount of common sense. Tolerance is a very bad thing. Morally gays are wrong. The bible is where marriage comes from and also says gays are wrong. Hate is akin to the word racism, not actually happening very often. Simply what blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims cry when they have nothing intelligent left to say. Gays want special rights as they already have the same rights as we all have. Personally I believe that the reason Muslim countries hate us is tolerance. They don't want fag pride marches in their streets. They want their daughters and wives to be virgins when they marry not like here where a virgin is a mythical creature like a unicorn. The biggest problem is that you gays are a genetic dead end. I am a veteran and as a vet I know the constitution very well. This is not much about gay or straight but about freedom of speech. If I don't agree I hate you? Hate actually requires that I care which I don't, I don't care at all where you stick your dick or tounge. Nazi Germany had the same nonsense rules. If you don't agree, you are an enemy. All the politicans that are using their power to stop chic filet took anthis oath to defend and uphold the the constitution should be jailed and charged with treason.
Can't cherry pick, if the
Can't cherry pick, if the bible says that morally gays are wrong, so is interracial marriage. And we all know where that road goes.
"How do you know so much about everything?'" was asked of a very wise and intelligent man; and the answer was "By never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant." - John Abbott (1821-1893)
First, let me preface this by
First, let me preface this by stating I am not a liberal. I practice "open carry" whenever I go into public. My question is this: If far right wingers had their way, in a perfect world abortion, gay marriage, etc. would be illegal. If this were the case, wouldn't our laws be pretty much the same as many Islamic countries, in that we would both be basing our laws on a religous book?
You seem to have this
You seem to have this entirely backward or at least ask the wrong question. Chick-Fil-a has not made a policy against anyone. Their CEO simply chooses to oppose a particular liberal point of view. He can't deny anyone a business license. Records show he has never denied anyone a job based on their sexual preference. He can't charge someone with some dreamed up thought crime or use the force of government to change anyone's opinion like a couple of pandering liberal mayors. Bottom line, he is entitled to his opinion.
If a conservative doesn't like the policies of a company, he feels free not to purchase their product, but accepts that they have a right to their opinion. If a liberal discovers that somebody doesn't share their opinion, they try to bring down the whole government to force them to accept their way of thinking.
@ross80477: How can a union
@ross80477: How can a union between two adults be made illegal in a Constitutional Republic?
I'm at a loss why this is even a topic of discussion as to whether to make it legal. It's unconstitutional to make it illegal.
You know "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", all that constitutional stuff.
It can be a nuance to Christian's, but them's the breaks in a free constitutional republic.
"you don't have a right not to be offended".
So live with it or go to Israel.
Chuck
Ross, My comment/question was
Ross,
My comment/question was more of a big picture type of thing, rather than being directly related to the article. I was using the opinions of a particular right winger to pose my question. I fully agree with your statement.
I'm still hoping to get a conservative response to my question.
You made a logical, factual
You made a logical, factual post. Ten you expect right-wingers to even acknowledge you? Your ambition is admirable but I suspect hopeless. You made three mistakes. You were factual, reasonable, and asked direct questions. The religious reich cannot stand any of those.
You might get a reply that does nothing but lecture or even revile you. But rational replies? Unlikely.
Still you did well and asked questions I'd like to see answered, too.
Good for you on the open carry, too. Whether it's your intention or not, you are helping to preserve second amendment tights. You might like my essay on that subject at: http://slrman.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/guns-or-no-guns/
First of all, this country
First of all, this country was founded by liberals. If it weren't, we wouldn't have the freedoms that we have today.
And I am not a liberal; I am a moderate.
Rights are rights. No one gets to "vote" on them, they just are what they are and the right of anyone to be treated equally is a right, not a privilege. That means that companies and people that try to restrict equal protection, equal consideration or equal treatment of another group, based on any single aspect of what they are (race, religion, gender or sexuality) is wrong, by our American standards of what is right and wrong.
If you want to live in a country that is run by a theocratic government (religion), there is always Iran and Saudi Arabia. Their religion is not that different from the fundamentalist Christianity being practiced in this country these days.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
@novacali: You are 100%
@novacali: You are 100% right,I applaud you, and I am a liberal.
I too practice "open carry" and "concealed carry" when in public.
Chuck
A liberal that "open
A liberal that "open carries"? What is it that you believe that makes you a liberal? I agree and disagree with both parties.
Greg
@novacali: I believe in
@novacali: I believe in justice and doing the right thing.
Chuck
Chuck, That was a BS answer.
Chuck, That was a BS answer. You call yourself a liberal, but have only shown "moderate" to "conservative" tendencies in this thread. Are you, for instance, in favor of "entitlements" or "wealth redistribution"?
Chances are, that he's really
Chances are, that he's really a moderate, but says that he is a liberal. When one is a moderate, the conservatives think that we are liberals and the liberals think we are conservative.....it's part and parcel of that "black/white" thought pattern of the extremists on both sides.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
You have accurately described
You have accurately described politics in the USA.
I have been told that, put in a room of Republicans, Democrats, and Libitarians, I would soon have all of them angry at me. I took that to be a compliment. :)
"As it relates to society in
"As it relates to society in general, 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,"
This is actually kind of an interesting theological question. Ought we not invite the judgement of God? Isn't AVOIDING God's judgement inherently sinful?
Isn't asserting there is a
Isn't asserting there is a god with no evidence at all inherently arrogant?
@Jewishfury: That's a mighty
@Jewishfury: That's a mighty big comment,Coming from a believer in the God of Abraham.
Who can be proven scientifically to be a false God.
The only God who can be proven false this way.
Chuck
The bigger question begs to
The bigger question begs to be asked.....Who does this person think he is in claiming to speak for any God? Particularly when others of equal or greater moral stature are saying the opposite and also claiming to speak for their God.
They can't all be correct, so how do you determine who is?
Maybe the various Gods are not sitting in judgement at all and, like a parent does when a child becomes an adult, lets us make our own mistakes and grow.
Doesn't that make more sense than to think that we all were given this wonderful and versatile intellect just to relegate it to the control of some jealous, manipulative deity?
It sounds to me that these false prophets are given too much authority, too much credence and not enough condemnation for trying to prevent advancement and enlightenment of our species. It makes more sense that people like Hucksterbee, the Phelps cult (WBC), Pat Robertson and all of those other "holier than thou" types are the only ones inviting the wrath of any God; simply by thinking that they have the moral and intellectual power to speak for said deity.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
False prophet? Isn't that a
False prophet? Isn't that a redundancy?
why is america such a crybaby
why is america such a crybaby and coward country now. its ridiculous you boycott or you dont because your bored. I dont support gay marriage but i still eat ben n jerrys. who cares. They can do what they want with their money. even if you believe evolution, nature created a plan with a man and a woman. your going against the very plan of nature. your only argument is you can do what you want.
Since when does supporting
Since when does supporting (or suppressing) human rights equate to boredom? Nature doesn't plan things, it just allows everything to happen. What tends to work will tend to keep happening, what tends not to work will tend to disappear. If you don't like gays, let them get married and live their lives in the manner of their choosing - and in a few generations (if nature really had a plan that they were violating) they should start disappearing. Forcing them to get straight married just guarantees that everyone stays unhappy.
Since when is reproduction a requirement for marriage? Are you in favor of denying impotent or sterile people the right to marry?
@bigboston: No one is asking
@bigboston: No one is asking you to support gay marriage, just don't try to make laws against a basic right that is constitutionally protected.
Chuck
Explain what in gay marriage,
Explain what in gay marriage, or anything about being gay harms anyone.
Explain how gay is "against the plan of nature."
Explain why you do not know the difference between "you're" and "your."
In this case, I think your
In this case, I think your tag line means lots more than your requests for explanation. I couldn't care less if gays want to marry. They deserve all the ugliness of divorce just like everybody else, but if this guy wants to express his opinion and people want to boycott him and bring the forces of government against him. I'm coming down on the side of he has the right to his opinion.
Who said anything about
Who said anything about bringing the forces of government into this?
He has the right to his opinion, everyone else has the right to their opinion of his opinion. No one has the right to not be offended, but they do have the right to not support the people that are offending them.
I'd love to reply to this.
I'd love to reply to this.
1.) That's a very interesting question. Being "gay" as you call it, from a certain viewpoint, doesn't hurt anyone. Sure, be "gay". It's a free country isn't it? However, your argument is "two consenting adults" correct? You do realize that people have a problem with it for the same reasons they would have a problem with men having sex with animals?
"If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear" Right, but when the gay agenda hears something they don't want to hear it's outright war. They attack your family, your person, your livelihood... They rally and scream. When that doesn't work they go after your income. When that fails it's outright assault. OH...but it's just glitter were pelting at his face. No, it's the principal of assault/intimidation. Do you approve of that? Sure fornicating with your own gender is your own business. It's just when people disagree with you, that's when the "harm" starts. If this country had a nickle for every attack the "gay agenda" has put on due to someone voicing a different opinion...we would be out of debt.
2.) Nature can be defined 2 ways. God or Evolution. Since it's obvious the former isn't your cup of tea, your siding with Evolution. AKA Life is one big fun fair that fell into your lap. You can object to that if you want but principals of it dictate your relived of any accountability. So a "plan" in your view is impossible since there isn't a planner. Your life is a party with no party planner. So yeah, from that standpoint no plan = no going against a plan. So if you think that 2 male rats humping in the sewer is evidence that "gay" is somehow natural as it has been observed before in the animal kingdom... My how humanity has fallen. You wanna look to that to defend yourself...mmk.
3.) You are obviously old enough to know better, grow up.
I notice you never respond to
I notice you never respond to my direct questions. Apparently it doesn't bother you that it reveals you to be an intellectual and ethical hypocrite. Or maybe the questions are too hard? Or is it that answering them would force you to reveal more of your bigotry?
No matter, you have already demonstrated what you are. No one should need further prof.
@ JoshuaMeme: "Men having
@ JoshuaMeme: "Men having sex with animals." WTF does that have to do with gay and gay marriage. You sir are a class "A" FOOL.
Chuck
Tell me, when has a gay
Tell me, when has a gay agenda attacked anything but intolerance and direct attacks on them, physically and by passing laws that deny them the same rights as anyone else? If a law were passed that made all religions pay taxes like any other business and be subject to the same truth in advertising laws, how loudly would you be protesting? How about a law that made all marriages performed by clergy null and void with only those performed by a secular official legal? You want it your way but are not willing to grant others the same rights.
When has a gay person ever assaulted anyone, physically or otherwise, for their opinion? Ridicule, contempt, and derision, yes; when you have earned it, quit whiling like a 3 y/o.
No I do not approve of those things. But it's exactly what the religious reich does every day to gays. To deny that is admitting you are either guilty of it, a liar, or a fool.
Evolution is a fact. There are many thousands of pieces of proof of it in museums, universities, and laboratories all over the world. The projected results of evolution have been proven many times. For creationism, there is not one bit of evidence anywhere.
Homosexual activity has been observed in many species. If we accept your "god did it" foolishness then you have to admit god did this, too.
Humanity has not fallen, it has yet to completely arise from the lies and myths of religion.
You are obviously too willfully ignorant to know better. Start thinking for yourself and come out from under the black yoke of religion.
Typical dumbass response,
Typical dumbass response, yours:
"1.) That's a very interesting question. Being "gay" as you call it, from a certain viewpoint, doesn't hurt anyone. Sure, be "gay". It's a free country isn't it? However, your argument is "two consenting adults" correct? You do realize that people have a problem with it for the same reasons they would have a problem with men having sex with animals?"
Let's get one very important point straight here. An animal is NOT a consenting adult.
Your comparison is dishonest, but then you are defending the con man Hucksterbee, and his sychophantic followers, of which you certainly seem to be.
Go ahead and ignore the scientific FACT that it is naturally occurring in nature, but your pathetic denial and dishonest arguments will never change the fact that you are wrong.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Wow...was I wrong about
Wow...was I wrong about you... Here I thought you were worth having a reasonable discussion with. I mean you seem like your educated yet you launch in with the foaming insults.
"Let's get one very important point straight here. An animal is NOT a consenting adult." Did I say that an animal was a consenting adult? What I inferred was that anything else than a man and a women mating, is going to repulse people that have the opposing view. It's the order they believe in. They don't care if it's consent or not. It's the mere fact that A: It's not the counterpart of the gender. Unless it's a women, it's opposed. That's the order that your opposition believes in. There is no leeway. That's the point I was making. Anything but X is disapproved of. Understand now? Try to calm yourself. Wipe the foam off your mouth.
Try to take the graphic details out of my comparison, think with logic not emotion. It's a simple point, anything besides X is disproved of. That is a system of order and a belief in absolute order and purpose. How is it even possible for that to be dishonest?
By the way, I don't know Mike Huckabee. All I know of him is brief glances from late night television.
What am I ignoring? If you see a rat humping another rat both male...You say lookie, it's cool because Natttttureeeeee does it. I also saw a male lion kill cubs to establish dominance. So by that logic It's ok that I go next door, kick in my neighbors door, kill him, kill his children, put MY seed in his wife and start a new little human pride? I have also seen a shark rape it's women, does that mean it's ok for me to rape? Your the one justifying it with "since if was observed in nature" it's ok. You realize that if you say anything different it's a double standard? So when do you draw the line?
> your argument is "two
> your argument is "two consenting adults" correct? You do realize that people have a problem with it for the same reasons they would have a problem with men having sex with animals?
People object to folks having sex with animals because the animals can't provide consent, and they don't have the means to say "no". There's a few other people that have a problem with it because knowing that such a thing happens makes them think "Ewww!", but the last time I checked, that's not a legally or morally valid reason to strip people of their rights. We get that you don't like the idea - the solution to this problem is easy: don't perform gay sex acts yourself, stop being concerned about what other adults are doing in their bedroom, and you're safe.
> "If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear" Right, but when the gay agenda hears something they don't want to hear it's outright war. They attack your family, your person, your livelihood... They rally and scream. When that doesn't work they go after your income. When that fails it's outright assault.
Can you provide even a single example of someone being physically assaulted for their views against allowing gay people to marry? Are you seeing the hypocrisy in your statement here yet? Since when does James' quote stop applying? Gay people want to marry, and they say so. Some other folks don't want to hear it - in return they say something that the gays and straight people who support them don't want to hear: that gays should be stripped of the right to get married. At this point, you seem to imply that there's "no tag-backs!" and the people arguing on the side of equal rights have now used up their allotment of being able to say things that other people don't want to hear. If there was a bakery in your town that advertised that they were in support of allowing gays their right to marry, and everyone from your church said "we're not going to patronize that business because we don't agree with them saying that!", you'd have no problem with it. Even though it does "attack your family, your person, your livelihood" for those people.
> So if you think that 2 male rats humping in the sewer is evidence that "gay" is somehow natural as it has been observed before in the animal kingdom... My how humanity has fallen. You wanna look to that to defend yourself...mmk.
First, I'd ask what you're doing in the sewer to just happen to see that. Is that injection of an unsavory setting (and one that doesn't occur in nature - before humans built sewers, there wasn't such a thing) supposed to make some kind of point, or is that just to make you feel at home? Second, You're really able to tell male rats from female ones from a distance? You must be some kind of biologist or something. Third, one act doesn't make something prevalent or normal - but, the fact that homosexual behaviors have been observed occurring in over 1,500 different species, (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior ) that does tend to establish a pretty clear pattern that nature doesn't really frown on it. If you're going to argue that your little god is in charge of making all of nature, he appears to have quite the fascination with making gay animals while disapproving of the same in humans.
Again, your comparisons are
Again, your comparisons are completely DISHONEST.
If you want the graphic details out of the comparison, then don't use them yourself.
I was being logical while you were trying to use a dishonest comparison to make an emotional plea.
Logic dictates that you compare "apples to apples", not "apples to oranges". Comparing homosexuality, which IS a part of nature, to bestiality, which is not a part of nature, is an "apples to oranges" comparison.
And for yur own information, it is the same comparison that idiots like Hucksterbee and the current right wing used back when blacks were first allowed to marry, when women were given the right to vote and when interracial marriage was first proposed to be legalized.
Yor argument ignores facts and is dishonest. Trying to explain that to you is like trying to explain evolution to a creationist. You don't want to be confused by the facts.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Joshuameme says, "What I
Joshuameme says, "What I inferred was that anything else than a man and a women mating, is going to repulse people that have the opposing view. It's the order they believe in. They don't care if it's consent or not."
People do not have the right to NOT be offended by anything. This is a diverse world, and people are going to have to see and deal with things they don't like and find repulsive. You're going to have to get used to being offended by some of the things that happen. We're here, we're queer, get used to it.
We, likewise, do not have the right to NOT be offended by Chik-fil-A. We offend you? Well, some of you offend us. So we're both offended.
You have the freedom to eat that chicken if you want. We have the right to call attention to Cathy's attitudes. We'll offend each other, and we'll see how things turn out and how the public reacts. And we'll see how public attitudes change over time.
That's the difference between
That's the difference between you and rational people. None of us thought for one second you were interested or capable of a rational discussion.
"Foaming insults?" Do you mean telling the truth? I'm sure that hearing what you don't like to admit instantly becomes an insult to you. When it's the truth, it's not an insult, but facts. I understand that you do not like facts or rational thinking. Both are inevitably fatal to any religion.
Any time consenting adults engage in sex, it is no one's business but their own. No one has a right to be offended, no matter what they believe in. Mind your own business. But that's not what religion is about, is it? Religion is minding everyone else's business and telling them what they should and should not do.
Any totalitarian system, be it religion, government, or social order first needs to control the sex lives of everyone. After people accept that you can tell them when, with whom, and how to have sex, controlling the rest is easy. Yes, by your own statement, anything but "X" (your X) is disapproved. But only by the sick, biased rules arbitrarily set by your sick, twisted religion.
Yes, you do know Mike Huckabee. You may have never met him personally, but you are in lockstep with his evil views and intentions.
Your comparisons are specious. I have had christians physically assault me because I do not believe the same things they do. Does that mean I can assault anyone that doesn't share my convictions? Many things can be observed in nature, such as anthropoids throwing their own feces at others. Wait, that seems to be exactly what you are doing. By your own "logic" that makes it OK.
you are is that ok with you
you are is that ok with you grasping at straws with that last point. i never said being gay harms anyone. Whether you believe in God or evolution it is a plan of God or nature for a man and woman to be together. not the other way around.
First, there is no god, so
First, there is no god, so your premise is unsupportable. If being gay doesn't harm anyone, why are you objecting to it and trying to deny them the same rights as you have?
You ignore the fact that homosexual behavior has been observed in species as diverse as Dolphins, Bats, and Penguins. If we stipulate that your god is real, then that deity must have caused this. Either that, or your god is far from perfect and omnipotent. Which is it? Or is it that there is no god and we are observing behavior that is within the range of what is normal for many species?
Please don't ignore those direct question and please do not try to justify your answers with babble verses.
There's that ignorant excuse
There's that ignorant excuse of "nature made it this way and that is the way it is". That argument is based in a completely ignorant lie.
Here's why:
1. In all of the known species on this planet, only 3 (Dolphins, Porpoises, Human) have sex for the sake of pleasure (those are the same 3 that have the most complex social and linguistic characteristics as well and t is a demonstrated fact that Dolphins have both a larger brain than humans and they use more of theirs than we do of ours - for the layman, that means that they are smarter - our advantage is opposable thumbs and the ability to make and use tools).
2. In all of the species of the world, more than 150 have homosexuality, yet only mankind has homophobia.
3. In all of the species of the world, there are at least 20 that are hermaphroditic and at least 3 that are transgender by physiological make-up. (Barramundis - native to Australia - change gender naturally after 5 years, starting out as male, changing to female)
4. Originally, the church not only condoned, but sanctified gay marriage, so why the change happened is most likely a political ideology, forced upon the people by a politically motivated church, in order to gain power; not a religious reason.
So the sad and ill-informed argument of one man and one woman is the only way that nature intended us is both scientifically and realistically, illiterate and ignorant of all of the known facts.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
1.) That's interesting. Could
1.) That's interesting. Could you explain what constitutes "pleasure"? I just find it interesting how you diagnose the motivation of another "species" mind. Lets say a bird starts it's rather elaborate ritual of attracting a mate. How is it you say that the bird has not a shred of pleasure in mind? Many animals show every emotion. Sorrow, anger, happiness... You claim only 2 besides humans have sex for pleasure? That is quite a statement. I'd like you to explain it to me. Layman terms if you would. Dolphins are smarter because they have a larger brain? So by that logic if an ape had a larger brain they would wear clothes and build skyscrapers? I'm not getting cute, I'm just wondering what your constituting as intelligence. If size is the measure of intelligence...mankind is out of the running? Our impact to the Earth, creations, ideas, well everything is invalid in comparison to a dolphin's intelligence? "Our advantage" is our physical differences? What's that got to do with intelligence? So if I can stack two blocks onto one another, and a dolphin can? Are you measuring intelligence by how a species constructs things?
2.) You know I'd actually like to take this one step at a time. You obviously know what your talking about and I'm very interested. So please whenever you can I wanna start a conversation.
Dolphins are smarter not JUST
Dolphins are smarter not JUST because they have a larger brain, but they use a larger percentage of that larger brain than we use of ours.
Smarter because we need advanced computer technology to just begin to decipher their language, yet many have proven that, over a relatively short period of time, they can fully comprehend OUR language.
And again, as I said, we have the physical ability to make and use tools. They haven't the appendages to do that or they would be the dominant species on this planet.
You are so arrogant that you confuse technology with intelligence, well explain how you can make technology without the ability to grasp and use tools.
Yes, our advantage is our physical differences. It is what has allowed us to compensate for our inferior capabilities to other animals on the planet. Our ability to fashion tools and machines, for one.
How superior would we be if we could ONLY envision these technologies but could not build the devices, tools and machines to make it happen? Intellectually, we would be superior, but we would not be masters of the world as we presume ourselves to be.
And since you are not, yourself intelligent enough to figure it out, Intelligence is measured by brain power, not physical ability. If it were measured by physical ability, the Dr. Stephen Hawkings would be a drooling idiot instead of the master physicist that he is.
Did you know that apes have been seen making rudimentary tools, now? researchers have seen this, but that is in the realm of science, which is clearly something that you have demonstrated a massive ignorance of.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
It's very simple. Even a
It's very simple. Even a deliberately ignorant person should be able to understand it. Sex with no possibility of procreation is for pleasure.
Your premise that an ape with a larger brain would wear clothes and build skyscrapers is accurate. Those apes exist and are called human beings.
I'd like you to stop ignoring the subject, answer direct questions, and not post irrelevant arguments. That's probably outside the range of what's possible for you.
Am I the only one that
Am I the only one that noticed this request for answers to direct questions was also ignored? I felt that the questions were simple and plainly expressed. Were they still too complicated?
By no means does the bible
By no means does the bible insist on a marriage being only one man and one woman, that is an outright lie.
Here, in diagram form, is a summary of the eight different kinds of marriage found in the bible: http://i.imgur.com/DXy1u.jpg
I love this part here: " "As
I love this part here:
" "As it relates to society in general, 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,'" Cathy said......"
Actually, Christians have seemed to have a rather myopic memory of what constitutes "traditional family values" in their bible. For those Christians that forgot what "traditional marriage" is, here it is explained as the Bible says it (enjoy the laugh from Betty Bowers):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hXQRKIW5Tw&feature=related
And for those who think that "traditional marriage" as approved by the church/Bible, can only be between one man and one woman, here is a little document to read through, that I have posted before, from the Jesuit order at Fordham University (a Jesuit school).
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp
And for those Christians that don't trust the scholarly works of the finest scholars that Christianity has to offer, because it disagrees with your false prophet, Hucksterbee, then even your bible must be wrong, too.
Either way, I have never been a fan of Chick-fil-A, anyway; always preferred KFC.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Jude 7 1 corinthians6 : 9-11
Jude 7 1 corinthians6 : 9-11
LMAO! You use a babble quote
LMAO! You use a babble quote to justify anything? That's a classic example of projection. You assume everyone else must be as stupid as you are.
its funny how you chat up and
its funny how you chat up and insult people online wow such class. once again you have nothing. Freedom does mean something and i have the liberty to tell you what you dont want to hear. your reaction says it all. it sounds to me that if i disagree with im a hateful man and wrong. so be it then.
I have nothing? Did I try to
I have nothing? Did I try to use a babble verse to justify an untenable position?
Insults? Nope, when it's the truth, it is not an insult. True, you may not like it, but religious people never want to hear the truth.
No, if you disagree and can produce rational arguments with verifiable proof, you are a thoughtful, reasonable person. If you ever manage to do that, I will give you credit for it.
I have said many times, on OV and elsewhere, if presented with undeniable proof, I will change my position. What would it take for you to do that?