August 1st is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

[Blackhawk2001]

Maybe because there is an injured party in your examples of murder and buggery. 2 gays marrying has no injured party, no ones rights violated.

I suppose it depends upon what you want your society to look like. My understanding of the gay community (based on observation of gays we've known here and elsewhere) is that sex is recreation and partners are the current convenience up to a certain age. That certainly resonates in our current culture where adultery has been celebrated on stage, screen, and in politics (as long as you belong to the correct political party) and is being inculcated into our culture through continued exposure. The idea that two gays marrying, then divorcing and remarrying, mirrors the current state of heterosexual marriage is just sad.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, the laws created by man. I don't follow the fairy tales.

That's your choice. But it doesn't mean you are correct.

 

[Denny347]

Then how can any person sit in judgment on any other behavior--whether it violates any law, sin, regulation, etc?

If you cannot figure that out without an invisible man watching over your shoulder...well, I can't help you. It is too much to write here but there are many good books on the subject that you can read.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If they are "fairy tales" then both are created by men. If you believe that, then why should one have any more sway than the other?

Good question.

 

[Denny347]

That's your choice. But it doesn't mean you are correct.

You are right, I could be wrong. But the lack of proof seems to support my theory.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If they are "fairy tales" then both are created by men. If you believe that, then why should one have any more sway than the other?

It is a terrible shame I can rep you only once for this!

 

[PINski1015]

I thought Marriage is a function of the church? So why is the government involved?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I thought Marriage is a function of the church? So why is the government involved?

Discrimination and taxes

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't disagree that we're a modern day Sodom and Gemorrah in the least. But you don't change hearts and minds through legislation. Banning gay marriage doesn't stop gay sex. Doing or not doing something only because of the law doesn't make you moral. If we try to legislate Christian morality on others, how are we different from sharia law?

Very good point! So far as I am concerned, there are two principal problems in this picture.

First, the institution of 'marriage' has had a specific meaning throughout world history (instances of polygamy notwithstanding--it was still heterosexual). Ideally, the .gov should be out of the marriage business and offer the same deal to any who choose to jointly hold their worldly fortunes. The problem I have with redefinition of the word marriage is that we constantly have people trying to undermine our liberty not only through legislation and willfully ignoring the Constitution, but by trying to redefine words which have had a specific meaning for centuries if not millennia. Case in point, selected unacceptable persons have tried to undermine the Second Amendment by redefining 'militia' to mean the National Guard. I feel that the argument makes itself that if we allow the redefinition of language, then nothing we hold as a solid foundation truly is.

Second, and perhaps more dangerous is the one-sided battle which has formed up for the hearts and minds of our children. The radical homosexuals have taken the position that they have a right to hijack our children through the public schools but we do not have a right to teach the children our values (at least not if they disagree) and have enforced this by arguing that the values that many of us take is 'religion' therefore unacceptable, but direct opposition somehow is 'secular' therefore permissible creating an atmosphere in which only one view is permitted. Pretty hard to make an argument under those conditions, which is exactly what they want. So far as I am concerned, if any manifestation of values which can remotely be traced back to God are banished from school, then likewise arguments to the contrary should be banished from school. Following this, most every news outlet follows this pattern with, again, a deliberate search being required to hear any dissenting voice, thus the children corrupted in school yesterday are fed a steady stream of horses**t today. The problem is that a fair debate is not the leftist way as evidenced by the constant efforts to silence any opposition, which Rahm is giving us a fine example of this problem in action with CFA.

My conclusion is that if they want to bugger each other, they are not harming anyone else. The problem is that in the quest for official imprimatur on their activities, they are deliberately harming both children and their parents as they attempt to impose their alternate morality on the children over the objection of the parents who are not wealthy enough to send their children to proper schools.

 

[Denny347]

Good question.

There are quite a few great authors that explore this very topic. This is one of the best.

 

[RockofStrength]

If you cannot figure that out without an invisible man watching over your shoulder...well, I can't help you. It is too much to write here but there are many good books on the subject that you can read.

It's not a matter of figuring it out, it's a matter of authority. Who are you to say that I am wrong for oppressing others, for example. You may claim conscience, but that is merely (in the absence of divine or extra-human influence) a cultural phenomenon. We call the gladiatorial matches of Rome barbaric and evil: they saw it to be no more evil than watching Russel Crowe pretending to do it in Gladiator. We claim that America is a great country because of its freedoms, but why is that superior to a totalitarian society that takes over the entire globe? Happiness may be in greater supply, but why is that superior? By what bar or measure can you call me wrong or right save for your own opinion or by stating your own goal for a given action, philosophy, or mindset?

 

[Jim Duncan]

If they are "fairy tales" then both are created by men. If you believe that, then why should one have any more sway than the other?

I would love to see the response to this question.

I'll have to be sure to tune in later.

Also, if they are "fairy tales" then from where come the rights of man?

 

[CarmelHP]

There are quite a few great authors that explore this very topic. This is one of the best.

As usual, a diversionary argument, not in response to the question. If all moral systems are solely the creatures of man, why should one hold any more moral sway than the other. Dawkins just states his preferences, and avoids that question also. I could just as easily say, "read the Bible." Would you take that as a valid response?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you cannot figure that out without an invisible man watching over your shoulder...well, I can't help you. It is too much to write here but there are many good books on the subject that you can read.

OK, nice jab. But from where does the rationale come to judge some and not all? Is it from some guy that wrote a book that you agree with? What if ole Joe reads a different book with different sets of guidelines? And if Sue reads another book you haven't read yet that outlines yet another set of rules?

I guess that's that anarchy so many find enticing.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

But what about all the cattle ranchers, errr soy farmers that will be losing out on sales to McDonalds after we all go to Chick-fil-A?

There's your big chance...start your own Steak-fil-A franchise...

 

[Bunnykid68]

There's your big chance...start your own Steak-fil-A franchise...

I hope the owner of this future business likes guns

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You are right, I could be wrong. But the lack of proof seems to support my theory.

I suppose it depends upon what sorts of things you would consider to be "proof". There are many people around the world who hold Christianity to be "truth" and have personal experiences which have convinced them. Perhaps you should judge people by the fruits of what they proclaim. This automatically means Christians are going to come up short of their ideals, but, taken as a whole, you can see the worth of their beliefs when carried out in practice.

Based on what little I think I know of you - which is entirely based on your posts on INGO - you've probably seen 'way too much bad in people and haven't experienced enough goodness in your personal life to be able to look beyond what you can see. I've been where you were (for different reasons) and it took a tangible "miracle" for me to start to believe in a "truth". In your current profession, doing what you end up doing daily, it's hard to see the good in people and believe that the truths that underlie our traditional societal beliefs themselves have an underlying "truth". That's not only a sad commentary on our society today, it's a sad reality for you. Without in any way meaning to be condescending, I sincerely hope you learn you are wrong in time for it to do you some good.

 

[hornadylnl]

What we have done is deny legitimate "community standards" to give unequal protections to a special interest group which has managed, through the connivance of governments at all levels, to equate themselves with the plight of black Americans prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s.

Let's take the government out of the equation. We can't beat them down with the hammer of government only to complain when they pick up that same hammer and return the favor. What are you going to do when gun ownership no longer fits in with "community standards"? So long as are wants and desires are popular, we're good, right?

This group and their allies have largely succeeded in their aim of changing our societal perception of them through their increasing influence in media, liberal politics, higher education (which trickles down to the local level), and their tapping into the "political correctness" movement which shouts down opposition so they won't have to argue with them.

Whether this trend will continue or whether our societal "pendulum" will swing back toward conservative family values, I really can't say, but I will continue to advocate for the nuclear family, not only because of my personal convictions, but because I don't believe any nation can survive without a strong societal underpinning and ours is eroding from under us.

They're advocating their values as you are yours, no?

I wish for everyone to live a right and moral life in a manner that I can't discuss here. But moral compliance due to the threat of force isn't moral action. We were given free will and for our choices to have any meaning, they must be made of free will. The Soviet Union put all the laws necessary for communism to work in place. What they couldn't account for is compliance and dedication to those ideals. The subjects were forced to comply and thus did not apply themselves. In a free market, a man succeeds when he applies himself to an end in which he desires. The efforts put in by those in both systems aren't even comparable. It's the same with moral action.

 

[PINski1015]

Discrimination and taxes

I will contend this wouldn't be an issue if the Government wasn't involved. Just let them Lobby the churches.

 

[terrehautian]

Today, this photo has been popping up.

I responded with this:

You know, just because people are waiting in line doesn't mean they are not helping others. There is so many worth while charities to support that many do (either financially or physically). Just speaking from my church, we have been to New Orleans many times, Nashville, Tuscaloosa and this year I lead a small group to help out the people of Henryville, IN on a Saturday. Many in my church help out at the light house mission by serving food or buying food and preparing it. We also volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, SAWs (Servants at Work) building ramps for people who can't afford them. Many help with Samaritans Purse's Operation Christmas Child on top of rebuilding mission trips. There is also others who go to nursing homes to visit the people there. If people can't physically do stuff, many donate money. I will leave you with a photo I took in Henryville. At first there was about 12 of us working on this property. By noon there was over 100 of us! We were doing things from picking up bricks, looking for personal belonging to walking the fields so the property owners could rebuild their fences to bring their cattle back.