We have no inherent ability to determine right or wrong, merely the cultural inertia of our environment,

 

 

Many biological evolutionists would dispute this charge.

 

Sociologists and anthropologists would dispute their findings.

 

I think good ones probably wouldn't.

 

There are a few very basic "rules" that are pretty much completely widespread in all cultures throughout history. Sociologists and anthropologists would likely look at the existence of "the Golden Rule" or it's equivalent throughout cultures and determine that that is likely an ingrained part of humanity. Which would jibe with the expectation of evolutionary biologists, who would say that reciprocal altruism things evolved in humans as we became more intelligent and more dependent on communities for survival.

 

Now, that may not apply with regards to the "sanctity of marriage", but only because marriages developed far later on in our species, as a social construct.

Anthropologists and sociologists have no say in the matter, anyways.

Living in the United States gives us freedom of speech and opinion, there is nothing wrong with what he said and to add to that it's biblical. Thats all that really needs to be said. Plus he probably unknowingly gave his company one of the largest profit days ever by saying what he said.

 

 

What are you trying to say? That anything "biblical" is beyond reproach?

 

Personally I'm tired of religion and really look forward to the day when humanity can come out of its infancy and drop it all together like a bad habit.

There is no need for reproach, and yes I'm a christian. If he wasn't a christian and said what he said I would still be backing it up, you act like there is something wrong with what he said because it pertains to biblical faith.

 

The man agrees with the biblical form of marriage a man and a woman.

 

Religion will never go away, nor will people defending what they believe, it's our right in fact.

Anthropologists and sociologists have no say in the matter, anyways.

 

 

How would they not?

Anthropologists and sociologists have no say in the matter, anyways.

 

 

How would they not?

 

Because those fields are not real sciences? They're 'soft' sciences. They have no quantifiable evidence of any of their claims. Physics, chemistry, and biology -- these are the fundamental sciences. They can be described by mathematics and mathematical proof.

:o

 

I've never seen squall be so serious.

 

 

Indeed, everyone from my 'church' is the same way. Although it's more of 'the daily joke' and less of the direct hatred. Much more indirect, but at the same time if they were faced with a real life homosexual it'd be full on hatred.

 

And note carefully what squall says here.Religion. Not faith, religion. In my books, at least, free thinking can include agnosticism. It's organized religion that's the real 'devil'.

Anthropologists and sociologists have no say in the matter, anyways.

 

 

How would they not?

 

Because those fields are not real sciences? They're 'soft' sciences. They have no quantifiable evidence of any of their claims. Physics, chemistry, and biology -- these are the fundamental sciences. They can be described by mathematics and mathematical proof.

 

And yes, the biologists are working on the 'soft' areas of their own field in behavior observations.

Says the..?

 

Maybe you don't understand the concept here. There's no hard and soft areas in anthropology and biology and everyotherology.

 

Anthropology/sociology/psychology (the 'social sciences') are all considered soft sciences. It's a polite way of saying that they're not as justifiable, not as real, and not as important.

 

Biology, chemistry, and physics are the fundamental sciences. One can argue that biology is an application of chemistry and physics, but that's besides the point. These studies have hard, factual evidence. When one isn't able to prove something in one of these sciences, it's because they haven't found out how to yet. Not because it's not possible. There's no 'soft' area in biology. That's the point. 'Behavioral observations' is something that directly refers to cognitive psychology, not biology.

Who are you to say that social sciences aren't as important? You're telling me that you can unequivocally tell me that economics or sociology is less important or more important than, let's say, astronomy? Pick up a book based on a social science and stop being so ignorant. (Edward Halls' the Dance of Life, for starters)

Astronomy is an application of physics and chemistry. It is not a fundamental science, but it is a hard science.

 

You clearly are not understanding what I'm saying Hard science = quantitative evidence that can be explained by mathematics. Social sciences are not one of them.

 

I respect the social sciences, but I'm sorry you're the ignorant one if you think that they have any equal say as to whether or not we innately determine right from wrong. All the social sciences can do in this situation is observe. Nothing can be proven. Statistics. Great for observation, but ultimately it's biology that would prove or disprove such findings.

 

Speaking of astronomy though, you're mentioning several of my colleagues and fellow students. They don't take too kindly to having a sociologist try to 'prove' what only biology can. All speculation.

Astronomy is an application of physics and chemistry. It is not a fundamental science, but it is a hard science.

 

You clearly are not understanding what I'm saying Hard science = quantitative evidence that can be explained by mathematics. Social sciences are not one of them.

 

I respect the social sciences, but I'm sorry you're the ignorant one if you think that they have any equal say as to whether or not we innately determine right from wrong. All the social sciences can do in this situation is observe. Nothing can be proven. Statistics. Great for observation, but ultimately it's biology that would prove or disprove such findings.

 

Speaking of astronomy though, you're mentioning several of my colleagues and fellow students. They don't take too kindly to having a sociologist try to 'prove' what only biology can. All speculation.

 

 

That's not what you said. You clearly said that the social sciences aren't as important - and in another post you said that they have no say in the matter. That's ridiculously ignorant. You don't respect the social sciences, or am I the only person who saw what you posted up there? lol.

 

And it sounds like you have very arrogant friends. By the way, this is exactly what I was arguing about with Squall. While divinity in religion may go away, the other aspects that come with having undying faith in an institution (the arrogance, the defensiveness, etc.) will probably just manifest itself onto something else that people will treat as a new 'religion.' I can only wonder what that's going to be...

Umm, what? That's exactly what I said. Both of those things. Yes, social sciences aren't nearly as important. I said that, and then I implied it the second time. They do have no say in the matter. What an evolutionary biologist says is either right or wrong on such a matter. What a psychologist or anthropologist or sociologist says on the matter is only speculation and cannot be proven by any means. The only thing they can do is speak with a degree of confidence.

 

So long as the field of biology has developed far enough to have found enough information on the subject, what an evolutionary biologist has to say on whether or not we as humans have developed the ability to determine right from wrong is far more important than what any sociologist has to say. Period.

 

I respect the social sciences, for what they're worth. But they don't get to play with the big boys, sorry. They're soft sciences, and they should be treated as such.

 

Yeah, I'm not going to make a new 'religion'. Defensiveness isn't a bad thing either, bud. It's offensiveness that's bad. Defensiveness is... step on my toes and I might step back. Don't step on my toes and we're good friends. But you clearly also missed a good portion of what I wrote about how organized religion is the issue, and free thinking should be promoted to a point where you shouldn't have to identify under a religion but you shouldn't also have to choose atheism or even agnosticism. You should be able to make decisions for yourself.

Biologists that are studying behavior in an evolutionary model are using the same type of critical thought analysis to observed behavior as an anthropologist that works with hominids for potential information on human ancestors (and human and ape concestors).

As a former Christian there is nothing scarier or as creepy and being around other Christians and going to church.

 

Also, I abandoned my faith after reading the bible a few times. Funny how the proof I needed was in the scripture of the religion.

 

Most Christians that I know and have met through my former faith either outright hated homosexuals or felt disgusted by them. There is palpable hate towards gays by Christians. I do know gays that hate Christians but that's hardly a surprise. Christians want to limit homosexuality and routinely attempt to cure it. Its disgusting.

 

Religion is the number one cause of evil and hate in our world. It needs to go away.

 

 

There is a quote from Rick Warren,

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first that if you disagree with someones lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." In response to what you said.

 

You see no good in faith? I see a lot of good in it you don't have to live your life in sin and recklessly making mistakes.

 

People changing their lives for the better because of a belief in a God is also a good outcome of faith.

 

It's a lifestyle really, and there is a lot of good that comes form it, I can attest to that.

 

Religion is a vague term, talking about multiple beliefs, I should have used better wording.

Personally I don't understand why some folks are so freaking uptight about what two other consenting adults do in their free time. It literally has no effect on them. Say what you want about marriage, but most of them already end in divorce. Gays can't ruin marriage or make a mockery of it any more than the rest of the idiots already have. Lastly, gays are targeted by religious zealots because they are such a small minority. When do you hear about these people speaking so adamantly against other forms of sin? I don't see them doing their crusades against gluttony...probably because a lot more people are fat than gay.

 

 

wat?

 

What are you wat'ing about? What he's saying is honestly the most amicable thing you can say to a religious person, especially when one is not religious themselves. Why do religious people feel the need to target gay people more than anyone else, and target gayness as their #1 enemy of sin? Meanwhile, there's tons of other sinners out there according to the Christian religion, and none of that is taken as a big deal. A good proportion of which are the same people all up in gay peoples' business for being gay, at that.

 

Seriously... that's such a splendid point. The only reason they're targeted by Christians who feel 'marriage is threatened and being gay is wrong' is because those people are afraid of gay people and 'disgusted', because they're brainwashed. End of story. Anyone who hates gay people is brainwashed to believe that, and that's the bottom line. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Who was targeting gays in this issue because it wasn't Don Cathy. He was asked a question and answered with what he believed. It seems like youre just looking for something to attack Christians on.

This whole thing started when the OP did not actually know what happened and claimed CFA was taking shots at gays which they weren't. Terrible journalism.

 

Dan Cathy:

"We don't claim to be a Christian business," Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, "There is no such thing as a Christian business."

 

"That got my attention," Cathy said. Roach went on to say, "Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me."

 

"In that spirit ... [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are," Cathy added.

 

"But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us."

 

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

 

"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 operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. 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 Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of belief, creed and sexual orientation. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."

 

Nothing was said here against gays nor was it implied, stop being ignorant and do research if you're going to post something.

The original poster didn't really do what you're saying he did.

 

What he did was question whether it is wise, from a business standpoint, to be that open about a potential view point you hold, while being the head of a corporation.

 

At least, you know, read the thread before doing that.

Who was targeting gays in this issue because it wasn't Don Cathy. He was asked a question and answered with what he believed. It seems like youre just looking for something to attack Christians on.

 

 

So? I mean, it's besides the point, but Dan Cathy is targeting gays. That's why he donates money to anti-gay organizations.

 

But I understand what you're saying. Dan Cathy's freedom of speech. Sure, that's fine. But when people don't agree with Dan Cathy's opinion, they're also welcome to voice out against Dan Cathy. In this case, Chick-Fil-A represents Dan Cathy. People boycott Dan Cathy. Yes, Chick-Fil-A is clearly a facade for the bigger picture here. But both sides have taken up in arms and Chick-Fil-A has found themselves as the battle ground. Who's fault is that? Dan Cathy. Should know what's best for his business and should've shut his mouth.

 

But my point on the post you were quoting there was that those people standing up in defense of 'freedom of speech'... the majority of them... don't give a rats ass. The majority of them would not stand up in defense of an outspoken gay person being drowned in anti-gay speech. They would not. If... hypothetically speaking... Neil Patrick Harris were to be interviewed on the news and say that he supports gay marriage... and he gets barraged with people boycotting Neil Patrick Harris movies... those same people supporting Dan Cathy's 'freedom of speech' would not be supporting NPH's freedom of speech.

 

Now... to cover my ground there I fully understand that there are people in the middle here who actually would cover his freedom of speech. Furthermore, I understand that such a situation would never happen because people generally tend not to care what people say they believe in if they're for gay marriage. For a good reason -- gay marriage is still unrecognized. Those in opposition of it have what they want, and they don't want that to change. Those who want it are fighting for their rights.

I know this might offend some people the way I word this bit I guess you can say I support gay marriage but I could careless if gay marriage was legal but I'm so absolutely sick about hearing about gay marriage and hearing it dominating over more universally important topics that I wish they would just legalize it.

 

 

Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous. So much time is devoted to something that is so useless. Gay people being married or not - ultimately for better or for worse the outcome of legalizing it is something that doesn't do anything. What I mean by that is... life will go on as it did before. I dunno if you guys follow what I'm saying or not... but basically... it's a much bigger issue than it should be.

 

It's a big deal to many gay couples, like my brother and his late partner. Even though they were together for more than 15 years, they were forced to spend Mario's last days apart. Mario's family, extremely conservative Catholic's would not permit my brother to see him in the hospice.

 

It was mean, sad and heartbreaking to watch. He loved Mario with all of his heart, and these people, who had contact with Mario every couple of years at holidays legally forced Jimmy out of the room.

 

That doesn't happen if they are allowed to marry or even have a Civil Union. Both are outlawed in Florida.

Also to follow up, everything they owned together, was challenged by these people in court. Jimmy didn't get to keep a single memory of any pictures or memories that he couldn't prove that he had paid for, since it was Mario's name on the deed of the house (it was Mario's house before they were together).

I saw my brother suffer for several years with severe depression after this. It was terrible, mean and all legal. These people did it on purpose, and said it to my brother's face.

 

The people of hate as I call them, hopefully will get what they deserve when they face their maker.

 

So yes, this does matter to a lot of gay people, and also to their families who have to suffer at the hands of hateful "supposedly" Christian people.

That story is just awful.

 

For the record, however, Dr. Beinfest is in favor of gay marriage, which I think is apparent if you read all his posts.

I saw my brother suffer for several years with severe depression after this. It was terrible, mean and all legal. These people did it on purpose, and said it to my brother's face.

 

The people of hate as I call them, hopefully will get what they deserve when they face their maker.

 

So yes, this does matter to a lot of gay people, and also to their families who have to suffer at the hands of hateful "supposedly" Christian people.

 

 

And ultimately, stories like your brother's are why I don't care whether Dan Cathy or the like "hate" gay people or not. That's a defense I always see from gay marriage opponents; "Hate the Sin, not the Sinner," right? That is irrelevant to me.

 

In practice, it does not matter how you feel in your heart of hearts. What matters is your actual actions in the public sphere. If you are actively working to limit the rights of gay people in this country, I don't care whether you claim to "love them as Jesus would". The end result is their subjugation and mistreatment, so it doesn't matter if you do it with a smile on your face and a song in your heart.

The original poster didn't really do what you're saying he did.

 

What he did was question whether it is wise, from a business standpoint, to be that open about a potential view point you hold, while being the head of a corporation.

 

At least, you know, read the thread before doing that.

 

Sure he did,

 

I like Chick-fil-a quite a lot, and my wife has now sworn them off since the president of the company recently came out and stated (basically) that their company is against gay marriage.

 

---

 

No he didn't and the posts following his were in response to CFA being so anti-gay, the thing is they aren't actually anti-gay Don Cathy just answered a question. He made no comments about hating gays or anything else regarding gays. He supports traditional marriage, don't make it out to be more than it is, let the garbage media do that. Just because you say you believe in something doesn't mean you are also against what the opposite of your beliefs is, thats what was (basically) said in the OP. Even if Don Cathy doesn't support same sex marriage that doesn't make him opposed to gays or anti-gay. People get all bent out of shape over the smallest things, that in itself is the problem not so much having certain beliefs.

He dontes his money to anti-gay establishments. His words were just confirmation for something we already knew. "Pro-traditional marriage" = "anti-gay marriage". Its just a nicer way of putting it.

 

By supporting organizations often confidered hate groups and donating your money to them, you are picking a side that is not considered "pro-traditional marriage". It is "anti-gay marriage". They go hand in hand. They are compliments. It doesn't matter how Dan Cathy sugar coats his words.

 

It'd be a different story if that was just his stance. If he simply believed in traditonal marriage, that's fine. Nobody would complain. Nobody would protest. It is the fact that he actively funds organizations that aim to never allow gays to be married. He picked a side in a fight. The other side swung back.