Is Dan Cathy a bigoted homophobe?

[PRmerger]

But the question I was responding to was about two first cousins - not about adultery. I’m not sure why you connected the two.

Because you said that you don’t care about incest–as long as it’s between 2 consenting adults.

I responded that you don’t *really *believe that “as long as it’s between 2 consenting adults” paradigm

To wit: you oppose adultery, and this liason fits your criterion of “2 consenting adults.”

So perhaps you need to revise what it is, exactly, that you use to determine whether a sexual encounter is moral.

We’ve already established, per your own admission, that it’s not simply “2 consenting adults”.

So what is your criterion?

 

[spencelo]

Because you said that you don’t care about incest–as long as it’s between 2 consenting adults.

I responded that you don’t *really *believe that “as long as it’s between 2 consenting adults” paradigm

To wit: you oppose adultery, and this liason fits your criterion of “2 consenting adults.”

So perhaps you need to revise what it is, exactly, that you use to determine whether a sexual encounter is moral.

We’ve already established, per your own admission, that it’s not simply “2 consenting adults”.

So what is your criterion?

The question wasn’t about whether the incestuous relationship was immoral, but whether two first cousins should be able to marry.

 

[St_Francis]

mormonsandpolygamy.org/

mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-seeks-to-address-public-confusion-over-texas-polygamy-group

I wouldn’t be imposing anything on Mormons.

Name the States that allow polygamous marrages

I’ll be right there with you guys when you support the right of a same sex couple to get married under the secular law of the land

Sarah x

Why is it Constitutional for homosexuals to marry each other but not Constitutional for polygamists to marry each other if there are more than 2 of them? Where does it say in the Constitution that homosexuals can marry each other? Do you think the writers of the Contitution would agree that it is Constitutional for homosexuals to marry members of the same sex?

 

[PRmerger]

The question wasn’t about whether the incestuous relationship was immoral, but whether two first cousins should be able to marry.

And now I’m asking you to tell us what it is that you use as your criterion for a moral sexual encounter.

It’s not “2 consenting adults”.

So what is it?

 

[spencelo]

Why is it Constitutional for homosexuals to marry each other but not Constitutional for polygamists to marry each other if there are more than 2 of them?

The constitutionality of excluding polygamous marriage depends on whether or not such exclusion can be justified by a rational basis. If there is no rational basis, then I think polygamy ought to be legal, but that’s a separate a distinct question - whether there is a rational basis - than same-sex marriage.

 

[bri89]

To the OP, I don’t identify as homosexual, but I’ll answer. I’m a relativistic socially liberal person who doesn’t think it’s necessarily bigoted to be opposed to same-sex marriage; what matters is the spirit behind the opposition. I object to the spirit of authoritarinism and absolute conviction, whether it’s religious or anti-religious. Bigoted atheists and bigoted Catholics are morally the same to me. I think that the conservative Christian understanding of sexuality is narrow, and I’m sure Catholics think my view is perverse and paganistic. This is why we must dialogue and compromise since we have no choice but to coexist.

 

[Sullibe]

Your definition of marriage may fit Catholicism, and Christianity in general, but it does not exactly fit Judaism. For the latter, the unitive function of marriage is more important than the procreative function, not that this secondary function is unimportant. Moreover, while divorce is discouraged, it is permissible, and in certain cases even required, according to Jewish Law, and the Law speaks about, and allows, what is today called no-fault divorce long before it became “fashionable” in secular culture.

You’ll have to forgive me, I’m not familiar with the understanding of traditional Jewish marriage.

After doing a quick little read through of a couple of different sites. I don’t think anything I’ve said really refutes this point. All that Christianity did was look at marriage, including the Jewish belief of the “two becoming one flesh” (which really was present in most every aspect of marriage every where else, though not phrased in this manner) and said, “well WHY would God place so much importance on that.” And the answer lies both in Genesis prior to “two become one flesh” - “Be fruitful and multiply.” It’s also reflected in the world in the form of natural law. The unitive purpose of sex is to provide for the stable family needed to properly raise and pass on faith to the children, for the future of the species. Essentially, Christianity reasoned that God said “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” precisely because He first said, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Thereby establishing the family. This is seen in natural law, as well.

Not to mention if procreation wasn’t at least AS important as the unitive aspect of marriage then why would Abraham have cared if he ever had any children at all? Sincerely asking.

And divorce… I think the “no-fault” divorce in the Ancient Jewish tradition was VERY different than the no-fault divorces that we see today. Even in Jewish Traditions, the children of the union were of utmost concern. I’m pretty sure, nowhere in the Scriptures, does it say, “Well, if you no longer want to be married so you can go to “Vegas” (being facetious) every weekend, then go ahead and divorce your spouse and stick them with your kids.”

As far as divorce being actually allowed, it is my understanding that it was tolerated (and enforced) not because it was sanctioned by God, but because the Jewish people desired it. Jewish law also permitted stoning people to death who broke certain laws, despite the commandment “Thou shall not kill.” Somewhere along the lines, things obviously got a little convoluted, at best.

Again, I apologize if any of this is offensive or incorrect, my limited understanding of Jewish Tradition is a weakness in this response. I’m only stating what I believe in reference with what I know (or at least what I think I know).

 

[atheistgirl]

He said polygomous mormons(FLDS) you are imposing your morality on. A morality based on an irrational rule you made up.

Name the States that allow polygomous marriages

The State defines morality,

Nope.

The State defines laws.

Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties.

Not morality.

Some laws are good, some laws are bad.

Bad laws get challenged and changed where needed.

Like denying same sex couples the same rights, under the law, as heterosexual couples.

We use our sense of right and wrong, justice, and empathy for our fellow man - our morality, to challenge unjust laws.

To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

In the secular version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Hobbes, natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. Natural law theorists also claim that morality applies to all of rational persons, not only those now living, but also those who lived in the past. These are not empirical claims about morality; they are claims about what is essential to morality, or about what is meant by “morality” when it is used normatively

so you were OK with the Trail of Tears because it was authorized by the state.

Jackson and his Indian Removal Act was bad legislation, driven by white European supremacy and greed to force us from our land, opposed at the time, forced through Congress, and inflicted horrific suffering on Native Americans.

These white European ‘‘Christian’’ settlers had no problem over riding their sense of ‘‘morality’’ to take advantage of a Native People and their lands.

Easily understood I guess when not long before these peoples Christian ancestors were debating if Indians had a soul and were therefor really human.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Cherokee self determination was ignored.

The very fact you could write that to me, given it’s likely you know my blood is Choctaw/Cherokee since you’ve been around long enough, just goes to show the utterly dispicable depths you’re prepared to sink to to make a cheap vacuous point.

That you could then put a thumbs up smiley icon after such a comment to me, when you know my ancestors died horrific agonizing deaths from starvation and disease is sick beyond belief and says enough about you that I never want to speak to you again.

You are blocked.

Permanently.

Sarah x

 

[epan]

What’s next? We will be bigots if we disagree with a man sleeping with other women besides his wife? “He can’t help it. It’s just the way he is. He’s attracted to all sorts of women. He can’t possibly control himself and sleep with just one?”

Hate the sin, love the person.

Bigotry is not a statement of views. It is a frame of mind in approaching those views. There are bigots on both sides of the issue. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterize liberals as such. Keep in mind that the majority of Americans have been in favor of gay marriage for some years now. Their opinion would be that they have that view because they are not bigots, themselves. So, while you may feel that the odds are stacking against you, and they are more rapidly every day, that should not be confused with bigotry coming at you. It just is the feeling of being in a shrinking minority. As that trend continues, people will wonder why you hold the views that you do, because there are so few of you.

 

[St_Francis]

To the OP, I don’t identify as homosexual, but I’ll answer. I’m a relativistic socially liberal person who doesn’t think it’s necessarily bigoted to be opposed to same-sex marriage; what matters is the spirit behind the opposition. I object to the spirit of authoritarinism and absolute conviction, whether it’s religious or anti-religious. Bigoted atheists and bigoted Catholics are morally the same to me. I think that the conservative Christian understanding of sexuality is narrow, and I’m sure Catholics think my view is perverse and paganistic. This is why we must dialogue and compromise since we have no choice but to coexist.

There are some things for which there can be no compromise. For example, there can be no compromise on which side of the road to drive on: either we drive on the right side or the left, but there is no in-between position unless you want an absurd and dangerous situation of switching back and forth.

In terms of traditional marriage, is there anyone who would say that our current situation of so many children being brought up in single-parent families, so many children having to go through the pain of their family breaking into pieces, of so many unborn children killed in the womb, everything that has been going on since marriage started deteriorating in the 60s, is this all *good? *

You say we are too narrow in our views, but I do not see that anything has improved by the imposition of the ideas of the “broadminded.” It’s one thing when it’s just adults totally messing up their lives, but when it involves children, we have no right to experiment with all this stuff.

 

[spencelo]

In terms of traditional marriage, is there anyone who would say that our current situation of so many children being brought up in single-parent families, so many children having to go through the pain of their family breaking into pieces, of so many unborn children killed in the womb, everything that has been going on since marriage started deteriorating in the 60s, is this all *good? *

I don’t see what any of this has to do with same-sex marriage.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t see what any of this has to do with same-sex marriage.

You know that whole thing about sexual relations and babies? Like, two people of the opposite sex get together sufficiently and then, !!! a baby is conceived!!!

Human life is precious, and the creation of human life is an amzing thing! Sex is not about feeling a fleeting physical pleasure, even if you do have some strong feelings for your partner: sex is about BABIES.

And it’s about the future of oir society, which is why society is supposed to take a kindly interest in supporting the best environment for children.

Our society has already allowed the institution of marriage to deteriorate to an abysmal point by allowing people to follow their libidos. Marriage is no longer about two people sticking together through rough patches (by which I do *not *mean abuse) *for creating the best environment for children.

No, marriage is about love, chemistry, hormones… but certainly not… no… eeeek! not about babies!!!

We have departed from the traditional view of marriage and that has been a *disaster *for all to many children.

Now it is proposed that we deviate from the traditional view of marriage *even further, * and some people call it bullying and bigotry and narrow and authoritarian, when what it is is saying, let’s think about the children in oir society. Let’s all be mature adults and start thinking about what we are doing, instead of just pandering to every whim of every adult without thinking about what we are doing.

So, SSM cannot generate children. When 2 homosexuals “marry” in the same sex, they are not promising to engage in the awe-filled act which starts new life. There is no reason society should support them in this, because the benefits society extends to those who marry are because the married couple is promising to bear and raise the future of that society. * Even if they are too old, or have been judged incapable of having children, there have been times when these predictions have turned out to be wrong.

 

[St_Francis]

…Jackson and his Indian Removal Act was bad legislation, driven by white European supremacy and greed to force us from our land, opposed at the time, forced through Congress, and inflicted horrific suffering on Native Americans.

These white European ‘‘Christian’’ settlers had no problem over riding their sense of ‘‘morality’’ to take advantage of a Native People and their lands.

Easily understood I guess when not long before these peoples Christian ancestors were debating if Indians had a soul and were therefor really human.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Cherokee self determination was ignored.

The very fact you could write that to me, given it’s likely you know my blood is Choctaw/Cherokee since you’ve been around long enough, just goes to show the utterly dispicable depths you’re prepared to sink to to make a cheap vacuous point.

That you could then put a thumbs up smiley icon after such a comment to me, when you know my ancestors died horrific agonizing deaths from starvation and disease is sick beyond belief and says enough about you that I never want to speak to you again.

You are blocked.

Permanently.

Sarah x

Sarah,
You might be interested in the Catholic relations with Native Americans. I can’t post any links right now, but the Jesuits (Blackrobes) were active in Canada, up and down the Missippi and in Latin America. You can read about St Isaac Jogues who along with his companion priest was martyred; St Peter Claver, who ministered to the slaves; and the special communities set up by the Jesuits in Latin America (forgot the name for them )

 

[stewstew03]

Not allowing same sex couples to marry and receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples, under the law, is unconstitutional.

Sources?

The Gill case and the Prop 8 case out of California have not yet been decided by SCOTUS.

 

[Stephen168]

Name the States that allow polygomous marriages

Nope.

The State defines laws.

Not morality.

Some laws are good, some laws are bad.

Bad laws get challenged and changed where needed.

Like denying same sex couples the same rights, under the law, as heterosexual couples.

We use our sense of right and wrong, justice, and empathy for our fellow man - our morality, to challenge unjust laws.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Jackson and his Indian Removal Act was bad legislation, driven by white European supremacy and greed to force us from our land, opposed at the time, forced through Congress, and inflicted horrific suffering on Native Americans.

These white European ‘‘Christian’’ settlers had no problem over riding their sense of ‘‘morality’’ to take advantage of a Native People and their lands.

Easily understood I guess when not long before these peoples Christian ancestors were debating if Indians had a soul and were therefor really human.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Cherokee self determination was ignored.

The very fact you could write that to me, given it’s likely you know my blood is Choctaw/Cherokee since you’ve been around long enough, just goes to show the utterly dispicable depths you’re prepared to sink to to make a cheap vacuous point.

That you could then put a thumbs up smiley icon after such a comment to me, when you know my ancestors died horrific agonizing deaths from starvation and disease is sick beyond belief and says enough about you that I never want to speak to you again.

You are blocked.

Permanently.

Sarah x

I think you have concluded that the government is not to be trusted as a moral authority, so it would be irrational to try to provide anything to be moral or immoral by whether the government authorizes it or not. So your condemnation of polygamy is just something you ‘feel’ and is not based on anything rational. And that is OK with you. Which is fine but it gives you no moral authority to condemn others.

 

[spencelo]

So, SSM cannot generate children.

Opposite-sex couples who cannot generate children are free to marry, so it’s profoundly odd why you would impose a different standard on same-sex couples.

 

[djeter]

I had no idea what this was all about until I connected a “Mumbles Menino” comment on the 7:00pm news last night and “Chick a Fil.” The reporter was asking Menino, hey the Catholic Church advocates what Dan Cathy says, are you going to throw them out of town too? The Mayor couldn’t connect the two but of course the connection is apparent to everyone else.

It’s amazing how the Homosexualists have passed through accusing all of homophobia when you don’t agree with their same-sex marriage equality twaddle to now out-and-out violation of 1st amendment free speech.

I wonder if we can push the election up to September 1st so we can end all this nonsense sooner.

dj

 

[FaithBuild18]

I went to Chick-fil-A last Saturday solely to support them. Darn good food. I think I’ll go again tomorrow.

Can the mayor of Chicago really put a limit on business simply because he disagrees with their views? Isn’t that a violation of some sort of law?

 

[Jeanne_S]

I went to Chick-fil-A last Saturday solely to support them. Darn good food. I think I’ll go again tomorrow.

Can the mayor of Chicago really put a limit on business simply because he disagrees with their views? Isn’t that a violation of some sort of law?

Just heard Mayor Bloomburg speak to this issue. He does not support anything like what Boston and Chicago?is suggesting. Wonder of wonders,coming from the guy who wants to dictate what folks in New York can and cannot eat/drink

 

[PRmerger]

So perhaps you want to amend your definition for what you consider to be a moral sexual liason?

To wit: you oppose adultery, and this liason fits your criterion of “2 consenting adults.”

So perhaps you need to revise what it is, exactly, that you use to determine whether a sexual encounter is moral.

We’ve already established, per your own admission, that it’s not simply “2 consenting adults”.

So what is your criterion?

And now I’m asking you to tell us what it is that you use as your criterion for a moral sexual encounter.

It’s not “2 consenting adults”.

So what is it?

Umm, spencelo?