Conservatives Misread the Gay Issue.

When gay marriage came to the forfront, religous conservatives were confident they had the high moral ground and would prevail against it.  The irony is that, in their failure, they have come to be viewed as on low moral ground.

The first mistake conservatives made was to claim gay marriage would harm straight marriages.  It didn’t occur to them they would be called to give an example of harm and that they would not be able to come up with one.

As time went on, it began to dawn on the majority of the public gay marriage and straight marriage pass in the night and never see each another.  One does not affect the other.

Conservatives should have dropped that angle of attack early, but they stayed with it long after it was was a dead chicken.  Conservatives began to look like the moral lessers, repeating something that is not true.

Undaunted, conservatives shifted to another line of attack, religious liberty.  They began saying their religous liberties would be harmed because they would be forced to participate in something with which they had a religious problem.

This argument is not turning out to be any more successful than the harm to straight marriages angle.  The public sees religious liberty as a desire to discriminate under the cover of religion. There have been a few disputes about wedding cakes and flowers, but mostly the thousands of gay weddings have gone off smoothly.

Conservative political operatives are simply unable to understand this issue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-religious-rights-failed-gay-marriage-backlash/284496/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to Conservatives Misread the Gay Issue.

  1. Donna McMaster says:

    A friend of mine was recently able to enter into a marriage contract with his loving partner of 25 years. In the meantime, and for the previous 25 years, my husband and I have been doing just fine. So, yes, conservatives forgot that their kids and grand kids are growing up in a more loving and affirmative era, for which I am most grateful.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Donna 11:51 Great post. Thank you, and welcome back.

    • David says:

      I’m not so sure that today we live in a more loving era. I am cheered that so many today understand that homosexuals are not bad people regardless of how they may feel about homosexuality. What I see are two factions of society that appear to be drifting apart. The first is the part of society in which most of us live. We have ordinary predictable lives. We generally associate with ordinary predictable people. They are married. They go to work. They have a house. They pay the mortgage. They have jobs. They worry about their kids going to college or getting a good job. They worry about paying off debt.

      And then we have the part of society which seems to lack hope. Single mothers with little support. Children growing up without dads. Children navigating their way around boyfriends and their mother’s overworked schedule. She probably works but has really lousy hours. She can’t devote as much time to her kids. The school thinks she doesn’t care enough about her kids to help out with homework. The dad is barely aware of the kid, or seldom see him/her or comes and goes in and out of the kids’ lives. The kids’ prospects are bleak. They have a loving mother, but she’s too tired to discipline or so tired that she over disciplines. This single mother has a smaller support network. She wants a solid relationship but has trouble finding a man that will happily accept what he calls baggage but is the most important thing to her. She feels guilty about her kids not having a better life. The meager benefits she gets can’t pay for the lack of support, the lack of someone to trust, the lack of someone who has her same interests in her child, the lack of another good role model for her child.

      So the loving era may work well for lots of children, there are so many out there that are hurting because two people failed to see the value of marriage.

      • josh says:

        I guess the single mother shouldn’t have spread her legs to begin with or had the common sense to use birth control.

        • entech says:

          Or, perhaps the man should have kept his trousers on if he didn’t intend to stay the course.

          • josh says:

            Perhaps she shouldn’t have been sleeping around outside of wedlock. Men do what they need to do. Woman are the ones in control.

          • entech says:

            I suppose if you are silly enough to believe in a real and actual Adam and Eve, and Eve (and/or Lilith) was the cause of the downfall of everything then I guess you can say what you like.
            Men do what they need to do. What they need to do is keep it in their pants until they get married and take some responsibility.

          • josh says:

            He did stay the course. Blew his load and gave that welfare mother what she wanted. 18 years of govt. assistance.

          • entech says:

            Trying to think of something to say.

            With your attitudes and claiming to be a christian I would think you could do more for humanism than any argument could. Ironic really because your attitude is not human more animal in heat, the difference being that most animals care more for their offspring than you appears to.

          • josh says:

            Those single mothers know better than too sleep around and get pregnant. This is exactly what the word warns against.  I’m just pointing out the consequences of those actions. I’m also pointing out the fundamental nature of mankind as a reproductive species in a manner that you can understand. Christians do care about their offspring. Are we to become the caretakers then of those who disobey the word after they’ve been educated on the potential consequences? I have oceans of respect for woman that live and behave in a christian manner. The rest? Not at all.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            josh 1:50 Men are just as responsible for pregnancies as women. I think it is well established it takes both for a pregnancy to happen.

          • entech says:

            Jon, not always, there was allegedly an event , admittedly a couple of thousand years ago now, that did not have a man as part of the pregnancy. According to some she had more children according others she remained innocent her entire life, if both are true the first was repeated and thus not unique.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 11:22 “Jon, not always, there was an allegedly an event..”

            Thank you, I stand corrected. I will point out, however, even a holy spirit has the choice of having sex or not.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          Funny, Men can do whatever they want, screw as many women as they want and they’re praised and applauded, women Have sex once and they’re deemed a whore…

          Very sad society that seeks a need to judge women.

          • entech says:

            And very sad people that think like, not necessarily miserable but sad in the sense of a sad case or sad excuse.

        • josh says:

          Ah, I see you needed to drag religion into it in some silly abstract manner that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. As W.C. said in regards to radicals “You can’t change their minds and they won’t change the subject.” Men are hardwired to assault the gates. It’s what we do. Woman are the gatekeepers. It their job to protect the gates. It’s what they do. Since you’re not a real man I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

          • entech says:

            Do you deny that all this misogynistic talk and attitude and out of wedlock doesn’t come from a religious setting.
            Religion is the topic at hand, Jezebel and whores are so much apart of it. The only part where you go astray from a religious view is all this attacking the ramparts talk, do you think everything through the medium of your “battering ram”. You should love and cherish, care for and protect, not attack. Your friend Father James asks where we get out ideas of morality from he would do better to ask you.

            Where do you get your knowledge of my manhood or lack thereof ? Is a respect for women a sign of not being a man where do you get your morals from?

          • josh says:

            Your posts pretty much sum up your manhood. You were in the navy correct? That says even more.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Josh 1:14 I’m fifty Years old and I never realized people think this way. Suddenly all this feminist stuff makes more sense. I had a twenty five year old Man once tell Me He could do anything He wanted with My fifteen year old Daughter and there is nothing I could do about it. As it turned out there was something I could do about it in Hindsight I should have called the Police. These attitudes will put the holder in harms way.I consider Myself civilized but there has got to be some kind of instinct to this I find it almost impossible to tolerate even disrespect towards any of My Female relatives. It maddens Me that any Human Being would be thought of as sport.

          • josh says:

            Think what way Adam? Make yourself more clear.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Josh 7:19 Think this way:”Men are hardwired to assault the gates. It’s what we do. Woman are the gatekeepers. It their job to protect the gates. It’s what they do” Women are not objects for Our amusement They are People. After thinking about it Isn’t it this very thinking that resulted in the behavior You detest so much in The Kid that might have Roma in His ancestry? My Daughter tells Me He has fled and no One knows where.

        • David says:

          I think it’s beyond that. We live in a culture that derides anyone that judges. If we do not judge then there are no standards. Culturally we have abandoned the idea of chastity. Every married couple I know “lived in sin” prior to getting married. There are lots of facets to this: young adults going to college before getting married, the wisdom of when best to get married, social acceptance of contraception, abortion, less responsibility required of young adults, and the list goes on and on.

          I have great empathy for single mothers. For a small minority there are no problems. For the majority there is a great deal of heartache. I have sympathy for the children of single mothers and from divorced homes. It’s very confusing for them. They live unpredictable lives. Despite lots of love from their mothers, they struggle. There are no government programs that can replace the love of a father, the stability of two parents, the economic security of two incomes, the support system of two extended families etc. The biggest indicator of success for kids is coming from a married home. My worry is that by redefining marriage through divorce laws and now with the logical extension gay marriage, we have weakened the institution and single mothers and their children are paying the price.

          I don’t think single motherhood is as simple as individual responsibility. We can’t damn a group of people because of one act which may have seemed responsible in light of the current culture and weakened state of marriage. These women deserve our empathy and attention. While they are certainly not helpless they have lots of cards stacked against them.

      • Adam Heckathorn says:

        David I appreciate this post it gives Me a glimmer of hope that We as human beings can have a shred of empathy for others We share the planet with.

        • David says:

          There is a lot of empathy out there I believe. I would only point out that it does not rest solely in the heart of well intentioned Liberals. We need to value our differences so that we can understand them.

      • josh says:

        But it wouldn’t happen John if woman wouldn’t succumb to men’s carnal nature. Like I said, they hold the keys.

        • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

          Go find a different bridge to squat under.

          • josh says:

            If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

          • entech says:

            I think the original was by one of your Generals that went into politics and that suits your mentality it started with, “If you can’t stand the stink, stay out … “.

            You certainly seem to have a mind like a sewer I am surprised Henry hasn’t told you all about it yet, but I forget, you are a fine Christian and not an Atheist so you are automatically OK while I am automatically not.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          josh 6:42 “But it wouldn’t happen Jon if woman wouldn’t succumb to men’s carnal nature. Like I said, they hold the keys.”

          Here is a fact: Men have the ability to turn down opportunities for sex. When sex happens, it is just as much the decision of the man as it is the woman.

          • David says:

            I would put more blame on men. Men will cheat, lie, defraud etc. to get sex. Grand generalization I know, but my point is that men will prey on the vulnerabilities of women and pay much less in the way of consequence.

        • josh says:

          Entech, and you have a mouth like one. Also a corrupt and violent mind. But what would one expect from the decedent of criminals.

          • entech says:

            Wrong again, born and educated in England, Australian by choice.

            Mouth like a sewer? I rarely swear or or use obscene language and then only to make a point.

  2. Candyman says:

    why would religious leaders have an issue with homosexuality? because it is a sin. Homosexuality is an abomination in the sight God! That’s Bibical! Quite frankly, I think the majority of ppl are plain sick-to-death of having homosexuality thrown in our faces everytime we turn around! If you like being a homosexual goes to a state that affirms it, ND doesn’t.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Candyman 12:07 “Because it is a sin.”

      I’ve said many times here, when we discuss Christianity, we can’t talk too much about sin. It is topic number ONE.

      Many people think the dislike of homosexuality has more to do with predjudice than with sin.

      • entech says:

        Yes, amusing how we are always being told about what is a sin etc. and at the same time accused of being obsessed with it.

        If anything I think the thing about it is that we are fascinated by the idea and where it comes from, why one thing is a sin and other things acceptable, if you take a Biblical excerpt you can justify almost anything.
        On the other hand I think the Christians, on this site at least (and not all), are obsessed with the act itself.

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      Is there an actual argument in here somewhere? It seems pretty circular to me.

  3. Henry says:

    Jon:“The first mistake conservatives made was to claim gay marriage would harm straight marriages. It didn’t occur to them they would be called to give an example of harm and that they would not be able to come up with one.”

    I don’t know how many times I have heard of a straight married man or woman pull up roots out of their family, with kids involved, to pursue their homosexual lover. In recent times, when homosexual “marriage” has become more common, this upturn has also occurred. We are told heterosexual relationships aren’t affected. I don’t buy that.

    • entech says:

      Suitably ambiguous Henry, “I don’t know how many times” usually means that the number is too great to keep track of, so gives us a ball park figure – 2,3 a thousand??

      Incidentally if a “straight” person takes up a new life with a “homosexual” it is a fair comment to say that they are no longer straight even to say they were no longer straight when the decision to “pull up roots” was made.

      Sentence 2. Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that with more “homosexual” marriages now more of them are breaking up bone partner decides that they are really “straight” and want to “pull up roots” give up the gay life and follow the yellow brick road.

      You don’t buy the idea that “homosexual relationships” don’t affect “heterosexual relationships”. Tell me, a good personal anecdote helps make the case, how has yours been affected? Do you find yourself wondering, just a teansy weansy bit, when you see two apparently happy men walking together, ever cause you to think about the movie – some mountain or other (can’t remember, can’t be bothered looking – but I bet you know).

      • Henry says:

        There are no heterosexual relationships affected whatsoever by gay “marriage”. People need to relax.

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-reels-married-dad-vanishes-16-years-reappears/story?id=19712227

        • entech says:

          Incidentally if a “straight” person takes up a new life with a “homosexual” it is a fair comment to say that they are no longer straight even to say they were no longer straight when the decision to “pull up roots” was made.

          From the informative article your reference
          Myers said that because he was gay, he felt forced to create a fake persona from a young age. He said that he believed having a girlfriend would help make him feel how he was “supposed” to feel.

          He turned to religion and at the age of 13 became fervently evangelical, he said.

          “That was when I started thinking, This isn’t right. I want to be with men,” said Myers

          The whole heterosexual and religious thing was a sham, a sham he chose to a live, it all became more than he could bear and he ran away. The only part wrong was the running away, the pretending – but as his life from an early age was all pretense I suppose it was habit.

          • Henry says:

            Of course. That is easy to say now. I would look back on his actions.

            No impact. All good.

          • entech says:

            Yes look back on his entire life and times, while the times are improving it would have been almost impossible for him to have been who he wanted to be a few years ago. If people were allowed to to be what they were and not constrained by the words and actions of people like you most of the problems would not come up.
            But I shouldn’t be too hard on you, you can no more be blamed for who and what you are than any gay person could be for their feelings.

            Love your neighbor, live and let live and just consider, for about a picosecond that you and the prejudices that you embrace and espouse could have an affect on the way some people are forced to live.

            The impact all comes from the fact that he found it necessary to live a lie for so long.

      • Jinx says:

        Gadzooks Entech! Henry is in the closet!!!!! Brilliant deduction!

        • Henry says:

          non sequitur

        • entech says:

          Jinxy, I never actually said that, but your post is hilarious. We do love to tease the bigots by talking of a defense mechanism, or as the Bard said “The lady doth protest too much”

          However, Henry saying that it is irrelevant does seem to confirm the diagnosis.

          • Henry says:

            If you love to tease bigots, you would tease your own kind. The freethinkers hold the most bigoted views of any group.

          • Henry says:

            P.S. Are you going to file suit for that, Mr. Sue-Happy?

          • entech says:

            Read it again, I said would the families be able to sue.

            I guess one must concede that there are bigots, freethinking does not preclude bigotry, but to put them at the top the list when they have to make up their own is a bit extreme – after all you have divine sanction for yours.

          • Henry says:

            Sue for what? Reading media reports? Okayyyyy.

            Sorry. You guys are right at the top. You have very discriminating taste.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 1:01 “In recent times, when homosexual marriage has become more common, this upturn has also occurred.”

      Can’t quite understand that. Are you saying it happens more often now than it did before gay marriage became legal in some states? I had not heard that. In fact, I doubt there are any such reliable statistics.

      It seems impossible the divorce rate of heterosexual couples could become any higher than it has been for the last few decades. Gay marriage does not increase heterosexual divorce. Of course, you know this already.

      • Henry says:

        No impact, Jon. No problem. No harm. All good.

        I am starting to finally learn from attending this reeducation camp. I’d put a smilie face on it all, but entec hasn’t taught me yet.

        • Henry says:

          No impact. Here is another story of no impact. Sounds like this guy had the loss of a gay friend to the prison system. His wife strangely left the day before the disappearance. Then things went terribly wrong. More news forthcoming. CNN will let us know.

          http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/missing-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370-3248001

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 1:50 re: Malaysian plane

            Another version shows the plane’s pattern was consistant with a mechanical/electrical failure and attempts to make it to an airport. Faux News will let us know.

          • Henry says:

            The Malaysian government may have some data on that pilot. His gay friend is likely being questioned along with his wife.

            The mechanical/electrical failure would be a redundant failure of multiple systems. I think an emotionally distraught pro-gay activist who was well versed on the systems might have helped the systems become disabled.

            Why was being homosexual such a high security risk in years past? Why would the CIA look for trouble that we are told is not supposed to be there? Please help me with my reeducation.

            I personally believe flight 370 had a high security risk piloting it.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 2:37 “Why was being homosexual such a high risk security risk in years past?”

            Perhaps for the same reason black people and women could not hold certain jobs, prejudice.

            Maybe you need to log onto the National Gay Pilots Association, mostly commercial airline pilots, and complain about their safety record. I know a woman member.

            http://www.ngpa.org/

          • Henry says:

            No impact. All good.

            Need more smilie face paint? Seems you may be getting close to out, using yours all up.

          • entech says:

            I personally believe flight 370 had a high security risk piloting it.

            I personally believe your PC has high rating bigot and homophobic piloting it.

          • Henry says:

            Feel free to criticize me for embracing security methods that work. Meanwhile, the whole world is being jerked around, overlooking the more plausible cause of what happened to 370. In the end, we have an emotionally distraught gay activist pilot whose wife left him the day prior to his disappearance prior to 239 people unnecessarily augering in. You can criticize me all you want. You will not be alone.

          • entech says:

            We have had some strange conspiracy theorists at different times, I never thought I would see Henry going down this path of insanity.

            If it proves you are right I will, as usual, apologise, but I do think your extreme homophobia (and the phobia part is intended) is bad for your thought processes.

          • Henry says:

            Conspiracy theorist? Everything I alleged is in media sources.
            1. The pilot was an emotionally distraught gay activist.
            2. The pilot’s wife suddenly left him the day prior to flight.
            3. We have been told the pilot hijacked his own plane.
            4. It has been confirmed the plane augered in southwest of Austrailia.

            Obviously, the pilot was a security risk.

            Then we have Jon speculating there was a mechanical/electrical failure well after it was determined the pilot hijacked his own plane. You better talk to Jon about his conspiracy theory.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 12:20 “You better talk to Jon about his conspiracy theory.”

            Or, you might consider other known facts about the flight. I’ve read this (though maybe there is other information that will come along) and it leads me to conclude it was not a “gay-gone-mad” who caused the plane to go down:

            1.)The plane flew for some time at 12,000 feet altitude. It would normally fly at over 25,000 feet. The altitude of 12,000 feet is the “sweet spot” for a crew who knows there has been cabin air pressure failure. The pilots wanted to fly as high as they could to maximize their glide in case of complete engine failure while low enough to keep people from dying due to lack of oxygen. 12,000 feet is about the highest humans can keep their brains clear.

            2.) The pilots appeared to be seeking an airport that where it could land. There are many factors at play when pilots make these emergency decisions, sometimes in retrospect choices are made that were not the best, but circumstances are complicated by how serious, or not serious, things look at the moment.

            A side issue is how well the aircraft had been maintained–what the standards were for that country. Maybe we’ll learn more about that. In the meantime, there is no reason to conclude the pilot(s) intentionally crashed the plane.

          • entech says:

            1. Where dose it say he is a “Gay Activist”, he is a supporter of a political opposition, the leader of witch has been framed, jailed and persecuted for trying to bring a bit of honesty into the countries politics.
            2. Details are a bit short, it could be that they have gone on a holiday or it could be that they have separated I don’t know you don’t know and at the risk of being ad hominim I doubt if that paper would know.
            3. By whom have we been told, do you believe everything you are told? Going by some of the things that you do believe it is possible.
            4. again confirmed by whom and why are they still searching in other places. Not quite sure what you mean by ‘augered’.

            There are still many different theories coming and going, the Malaysian Government has said the investigation is moving away from the pilot.
            I wonder if the families of the flight staff will be able sue you when it is all cleared up?

          • Henry says:

            1. Political activist concerning his gay friend = gay activist. As reported.
            2. As reported. No more, no less.
            3. Malaysian government told us the plane was redirected by the pilot. As reported.
            4. Doppler effect of “ping” signal confirmed southern track. As reported.

            You have now stooped to a new low. In order to stifle debate to your advantage, you threaten suit. We call those people in this neck of the woods, sue-happy. You are now in a well-esteemed crowd.

            Augered in? Maybe your online pilot friend can help you with that term.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:22 re: discussion of Malaysian airline crash, a gay pilot

            Today there is a story one of the “Muslim” pilots subscribed to Richard Dawkins videos. So, you have a lot going for you, gay pilot, athiest pilot–God must have just pushed this airplane into the sea to punish the pilots.

            A nice hypothetical explanation is on the web today written by an experienced pilot. The closest airport where the plane would not have to climb was the one he was headed for. There were rational decisions and rational flying. I know that will not change you mind, but here it is:

            http://www.christianpost.com/news/former-pilot-chris-goodfellow-gives-the-most-plausible-explanation-yet-for-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-116489/

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“In the meantime, there is no reason to conclude the pilot(s) intentionally crashed the plane.”

            Jon, your explanations do not account for why there was a triple failure of locating devices. As the investigators have said, “It [mechanical failure] does not hinge together.” I will rely on the media who are saying the flight was a suicide mission.

          • entech says:

            Jon the analysis from the ex-pilot looks to be a reasonable possibility, similar theories have been in various media outlets. Of course if you like to read sensationalist media that agree with what you want to believe that is your prerogative, just as is believing a lot of old books to be a true and reasonable account of origins.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 2:08 “..analysis from the ex-pilot looks to be a reasonable possibility, similar theories have been in various media..”

            We all know there is really little to go on. When it gets to speculating, another little tidbit of information is that in 2011 Maylyasian Airlines suffered what Wikipedia calls a “stunning loss” of money. So, it has been struggling to reinvent itself with fewer flights, lower costs, etc. One wonders what temptations were put in front of management to lower costs. Could one have been deferred maintainence? Running tires and thousands of other parts just a little longer would be tempting.

          • Henry says:

            I have heard a triple seven pilot say the mechanical failure is unlikely. I would say a triple failure of locating devices is very unlikely.

            You have a pilot that should have had difficulty getting a security clearance. This is a classic case of keeping it simple. lex parsimoniae

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:05 “…a triple seven pilot say the mechanical failure is unlikely. I would say a triple failure of locating devices is very unlikely.”

            I would agree, any serious failure is unlikely. There have been almost no big failures the last couple of years. But, stuff does fail occasionally.

            If there is a smell of heat or smoke, one of the first steps is shutting down all electrical systems. Even in my little plane that is the standard instruction. That’s the general consensus for no communication–as I understand it.

            This isn’t in the pilot’s article, but I thought about the plane’s pilots planning for a “gear up” landing. They would have wanted a low flat approach that was offered by the airport there were headed to.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“If there is a smell of heat or smoke, one of the first steps is shutting down all electrical systems. Even in my little plane that is the standard instruction. That’s the general consensus for no communication–as I understand it.”

            That doesn’t work with the triple seven. It flies by wire.

            Also, 370 made a very conscientious effort at making key navigational waypoints after the erratic behavior of flying up to its high stall ceiling of 45,000 ft. This strongly implies human hands were guiding it with navigational systems intact after the supposed point of mechanical/electrical failure.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:50 “That doesn’t work with the triple seven. It flies by wire…navigational systems intact after the supposed point of mechaical/electrical failure.”

            It’s a waste of time to keep discussing flying with you, but one more try. Let’s first admit neither of us know what happened. It could have been a crazy pilot. There is just no clear evidence that was the problem.

            “Fly-by-wire” means fly by computer. Airline management tells pilots the route and elevation they are to fly and they put that in their on board computer and boot up after they take off. It runs by electricity and would be shut down along with the communications radios and signals if all power was disengaged.

            The plane has backup battery operated GSP on board for just this possibility. So, the pilot can fly the plane manually following a GSP heading–which also tells the elevation. There is an old fashioned “whiskey compass”.

            That the plane nosed up to 45,000 feet is not necessarily evidence of a suicide pilot. It was more likely a pilotless plane, the auto pilot was off and the crew were trying to put out a fire or solve some other problem and/or passengers moving to the back of the plane.

            Entech provided the most insight into the kind of information coming out and the way it is coming out. The government there will try to blame the crash on the pilots, not on a poorly maintained aircraft.

          • entech says:

            I don’t know why we keep on with this Jon. There is something that has gone wrong, Henry can introduce the possibility of something “GAY” therefore that is the cause. It must be true and honest because Henry is not anti-gay, does not hate gays, in fact … .

          • entech says:

            Flies by wire and a tightly wound up rubber band.

          • Henry says:

            Nothing cogent to offer from 4:44 or 4:45.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“It’s a waste of time to keep discussing flying with you, but one more try…..”Fly-by-wire” means fly by computer. Airline management tells pilots the route and elevation they are to fly and they put that in their on board computer and boot up after they take off. It runs by electricity and would be shut down along with the communications radios and signals if all power was disengaged.”

            Jon, you are indicating “fly by wire” is navigational. Perhaps it is, but the more relevant usage is that “fly by wire” is the method of operating the control surfaces of the plane through electrical connections as opposed to mechanical/hydraulic connections. Therefore, your 3:34 suggestion of shutting down all electrical would be catastrophic for this type of aircraft.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:34 “Jon, you are indicating “fly by wire” in navigational…method of operating control surfaces through electrical connections as opposed to mechanical/hydrolic connections…shutting down all electrical would be catastrophic for this type of aircraft.”

            You are correct, the computer simoultaneously navigates and flys the airplance by turning it to and maintaining its assigned heading, maintaining its assigned altitude and airspeed. So far as I know, there has never been an airplane made, except the drone, which cannot be flown manually. Please attach some documentation this plane absolutely could not be flown manually.

            Flying an airliner manually is takes some strength–it is one of the challenges to physically small people in the cockpit. But, so far as I know, airliners have to provide the option of flying manually for the very reason we are discussing, electrical failure. Pilots are required to stay current in their manual flying skills. Here is a link with pilots discussing manual flying. In one place it says use of the manual throttle on the 777 is prohibited. That means there is one but they don’t want pilots to use it to land, etc.

            http://www.pprune.org/questions/499156-flying-airliner-manually.html

          • Henry says:

            Jon, flying a 777 manually means the computer guidance is disabled, but the electrical servos are still responsive to manual adjustment of the control surfaces. I can’t imagine a very large mechanical linkage passing through the body of the aircraft that two very strong men would be able to manage the large forces needed to alter the control surfaces. What you are talking about would be on the scale of a cessna that you would see that. Even the Vought Crusader, one of the first pioneers of fly by wire, had no mechanical backup back in the 60′s.

            However, I could be wrong.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 10:26 “I can’t imagine a very large mechanical linkage passing through the body of the aircraft..”

            I can’t either. I don’t understand how the force or leverage is accomplished. It’s just that airplane design is all about redundancy. The electricity can fail, computers can fail, you know all of that. I don’t think the FAA or insurance companies will approve a design w/o the ability to override computer guided controls.

            I would mention this also. I’ll bet they were not good at hand flying the airplane. A Korean airplane stalled short of a runway last you in California. On my pilot website are several airline guys who own Cessna 150′s (I’m not on there just now). They discussed pilots from countries where people are either too poor or the cost too high to fly little planes for recreation. There, the pilots simply learn computers and fly only in computerized simulators, then airlines. They explained such people don’t ever develop a mental sense of what makes an airplane fly, how to control it. In the Korean case, the plane was too slow too far from the runway. Instead of overriding the computer, pushing the nose down and advancing the throttle, they fussed with the computer.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“I’ll bet they were not good at hand flying the airplane.”

            I would agree. From what I have read, pilots that do not use the manual controls at regular intervals eventually lose the real time understanding and “feel” of how the various control surfaces are operating together.

            However, we do know they had several hours of time to get it all figured out. You have wonderfully made the case of the redundant systems. Therefore, the mechanical/electrical failure mode becomes even more improbable considering the backup systems you allege. They should have been able to get the plane NEAR a runway with total system failure, although not necessarily landing safely with the supposed restricted abilities. That clearly didn’t happen.

            The cabin of that airplane contained significant security risks.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 2:59 “They should have been able to get the plane NEAR a runway with total system failure.”

            I agree, unless there was a really bad fire on board. Wasn’t it about 15 years ago an airline burned up just off Boston? It was because some electirical wires went through the fuel tank. Fires in airplanes are a death certificate.

          • Henry says:

            I think you are thinking of TWA 800. It did not fly on for several hours after its initial distress making critical human guided navigational waypoints, but instead immediately falling to the sea.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:47 “It did not fly for several hours…”

            You know my point, but prefer to dance away from it. TWA 800′s pilots could not navigate because they were burned to toast. Planes can burn up. If the Malysian plane’s pilots were burned to toast, even a straight pilot could not navigate.

            In my recollection, whenever there is a horrific crash, an airplane’s maintenance records are covered in the press. I’ll be surprised if the maintenance records of that plane are made public. That’s where I’m guessing the problems started.

        • entech says:

          Not trying to be cogent in the sense of adding anything to the discussion, simply wondering why we continue as you have already made up your mind.

          4:45 The rubber band remark was in response to your, That doesn’t work with the triple seven. It flies by wire. Does the co-pilot have wires tied to his ankles in case the electricity fails and can longer operate the wires. ? As usual you go to extremes to defend the indefensible.
          Latest talk is contradictory some say he is very upset about his wife leaving but the reason seems to be that he has a new lady friend, his son is supportive and says he doesn’t think it is likely.
          The only place I have seen any gay connection is from YOU.

          • Henry says:

            You are false. He was deeply upset with his gay friend being imprisoned and was reported as a political activist in regards to this cause. He was a gay activist over the events that were very troubling to him. You need to read.

          • Henry says:

            You also demonstrate your very primitive understanding of what flying by wire is.

          • entech says:

            The case against Anwar Ibrahim is purely political, Coming out against corruption by the party he was once a leading member of led to false charges and imprisonment, to the charges being overthrown and his being released. He came as close as any one to defeating the incumbent government has ever done and, surprise, surprise the government has appealed and he could be back in jail.
            In March 2014, Mr Anwar’s legal troubles returned. A court overturned an earlier acquittal for sodomy – illegal in Muslim-majority Malaysia – in response to a government appeal.

            The move happened days before Mr Anwar was due to contest a by-election in a key state.

            Malaysia is a democracy in name only, the government controls the media (interesting the local media is now running a campaign against the foreign media) and pretty much the courts as well.
            You believe any conspiracy theory against your own president, in your own free republic, but take the side of a government known to be corrupt and dictatorial.
            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16440290

            Your insistence on a gay connection is an indictment against you and your denial that you are anti-gay and hate gays.
            He was a long time member of the party and obviously a supporter of the leader, they were also acquainted. The leader had been convicted of trumped up charges of a sexual act with his wife’s driver, the wife is still with him.

          • entech says:

            I agree I have absolutely no idea what flying by wire is, hence my joke. I am just assuming it is something else you threw in to bolster your non-case.

          • entech says:

            Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, wife of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, won a special state election, having replaced her husband in the contest after he was sentenced to jail for sodomy.
            Not only still together but still a team against a corrupt system.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-23/malaysia-opposition-leader-anwar-s-wife-wins-vote-for-state-seat.html

          • Henry says:

            The record speaks clearly of the security risk in that cockpit. Don’t overlook the simple stuff.

          • entech says:

            The thread here speaks clearly of your anti gay obsession, gay as a security risk died at the end of the cold war.
            You are like a dog with a bone, a very small dog with a very big bone, one it can’t eat or even bury but you can see its tiny mind working, its my bone and I will keep it forever.

            What record are you talking about? There is no record only the mindless speculation of newspapers looking for a headline to sell a few extra copies, and you.

          • Henry says:

            The cold war hasn’t yet ended.

          • entech says:

            I guess to the paranoid it will never end.
            You will always find someone against you. If they are hard to find just invent some.

          • Henry says:

            If that is your fear, go for it.

          • entech says:

            I see you have taken the opportunity to continue the change of direction I offered. A sure sign you are wrong but hate to admit it. But I must admit I am a bit more onfused than usual – what is it about your paranoia that should invoke fear in me.

            You have done more to convert me in the last few minutes than anyone ever has. At least your last sentence @ 10:26 pm However, I could be wrong. almost has me believing in miracles.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“But I must admit I am a bit more onfused than usual….”

            Impossible.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 1:01 “I don’t know how many time I have heard of a straight married manor woman pull up roots..to pursue their homosexual lover.”

      This is funny. The married person was “straight” but the lover was “homosexual”? What happens when two men are married to women, then divorce and get married to each other. Are they both “straight”, or, both “homosexual lovers”, or one of each?

      • Henry says:

        Straight marriage is becoming a more difficult concept to understand with many people laughing at it. No harm. All good.

  4. David says:

    This is really a straw argument – that conservatives claim that gay marriage will hurt heterosexual marriages. That’s not the claim – perhaps some sloppy short cutters have made this argument. Perhaps some without much understanding have made this argument. If you think this is the argument that has been made then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what conservatives have argued or have a purposeful misunderstanding of what conservatives have argued.

    • Wolfy32 says:

      David, I think it’s simple to say that without being in the conservative thinking process liberals / gay supporters really have no understanding of what the conservatives issue is. I’ve asked for biblical verses for where the bible says homosexuality is wrong, and they site soddam and gamorrah’s demise which was due to sexual perversion. They wanted to rape everyone in town. Something was in the water or something. A rape mob if you will. I think conservatives have really painted themselves to be modern predjuiced “racists” for lack of a better word. It’s just too different for conservatives to accept. At the same time, with the activist community being an “in your face group” attacking conservatives for attacking them, well, it just makes religious conservatives to be even more rooted in their thinking.

      • Fr. James says:

        I think you could find some verses in Romans chapter one. Equating racism with defending marriage is a common fallacy. Homosexuals are not a different race. We attack no one, but defend natural marriage against those who attack it. Just like with abortion, we will never ever give up no matter what.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          By “defending marriage” against those that want to be included in marriage you are, by definition, attacking those that seek it..

          It’s like claiming someone else’s pot of gold as yours and killing everyone that wants to share in it… By defending you’re still attacking….

          I don’t agree with abortion as a solution. Fix the problem. It’s quite simple, people help mothers that can’t afford their children… Like allowing them to be adopted by gay couples, abortion problem and gay marriage issues solved. Abortions go down as more outlets for adoption become available and gays get their desire to have a family.

          It’s win win… Our societal problems are created by those that think they’re trying to better society but instead are damaging it. Oh well, as long as there are religious fanatics there will be no peace..

          Too bad they stopped fighting each other and now just fight…. If they’d go back to fighting each other, the rest of us could live in peace!

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            “If they’d go back to fighting each other, the rest of us could live in peace!” – See more at: http://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/03/24/conservatives-misread-the-gay-issue/#comment-330778

            Good luck with that.

          • josh says:

            “By definition, attacking those that that seek it..”
            How is that by definition? Definition? What a stupid choice of words. How does one attack something when they’re defending something. You are the one attacking the traditional union and correct version of marriage.

          • David says:

            You should reexamine what is the “it.” You say homosexuals want to be a part of marriage. To the good Father this is like saying a man wants to give birth to a baby. It’s not an argument about Natural Law. Father James is saying that marriage is between a man and a women. If it was not then we wouldn’t have to pass laws in order to allow homosexual marriage. In other words, in order to allow homosexual marriage we need to redefine what marriage is. The “it” that you speak of is different than the “it” Father James is speaking of. In your mind marriage is about love. In law love has nothing to do with marriage.

            The pertinent question is why Father James wants to protect the “one man one women” legal definition of marriage? You assume you know but perhaps you don’t.

          • Fr. James says:

            Not at all. Same sex unions are an attack on marriage. This hurts children and everyone else in society. It doesn’t make things better. Adoption into natural families is available. The real fanatics are not religious, they are the secularists and homosexual activists.

        • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

          Fr. James is trotting the old natural order argument. The same one that said it was just the “natural order” that ordained that women should be dominated by men and have essentially no rights once married. And it’s the same “natural order” argument that has been used to justify discrimination in this country time and time again. No wonder you guys are losing the argument.

          • entech says:

            It is just a few easy steps from not natural to not normal, from not normal to not human, from not human to not entitled to live in human society, to kill the bastards.
            Each baby step along these paths serves to erode the conscience and increase the religious justification.

          • David says:

            This is naïve. The term “natural marriage” is another way of defining marriage between one man and one woman. Your conclusions stem from your assumptions. A risky business.

          • Fr. James says:

            I see you want to instruct me on the parody of natural law, the straw man, that you use to replace natural law theory. It might be nice if you debated what things really are rather then something imaginary. Of course in a way that is the point. Gay marriage is simply impossible in reality, so it is at least consistent that you eschew any objective reality.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Fr. James 7:12 “Gay marriage is simply impossibe in reality…you exchew any objective reality.”

            I’m afraid you come up a little short on the objective reality scale. Apparently, in you branch of the faith it is “impossible”. A little further up on the reality scale you would find marriage has been defined in many ways by many societies and religions. It originally was not the function of religions, but of tribal and clan leaders, our term for government. Churchs muscled in on the action when they found it in their own self interest.

          • Fr. James says:

            entech, I think that is what you side is aiming for:

            http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1173

          • entech says:

            Don’t get me wrong I am not anti-Catholic as such, I have often pointed to good sites and Videos, especially about the amazing contribution to science, even cosmology.

            It is personal, I just find your holier than thou and I am right and everyone else is wrong attitude mildly distasteful, the only thing I would strongly object to about the Catholic church is the consistent implication that they are the only correct ones, every one else may be all right, almost, but not like us, we have the mandate from Jesus himself.

          • Fr. James says:

            Jon, marriage has always had a religious basis in ancient cultures and most modern ones. It was only later that the government became involved. For example the French Revolution, where so many lost their heads to an enlightened regime based on “reason.”

            I can claim to be Emperor, but that is not real. 2 men can claim to be “married” but that isn’t real either.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Fr. James 3:23 “Jon, marriage has always had a religiou basis in ancient cultures…”

            That’s really a sweeping generalization, and, so far as I know, baseless. Are you citing Church doctrine, athropological study and just making it up.

          • Fr. James says:

            entech, really? Read Jon’s posts and those of other atheists. Don’t you notice their “smarter then thou” attitude? I do. Some things are simply true, regardless of what we want. You believe you are right and we believe we are right. The evidence is on our side. I see no reason to simply fold just because folks don’t like reality.

          • entech says:

            FJ 3:26 Very few atheists and none that I know would claim evidence to back up their rejection of your belief system.

            You make a categorical statement about the evidence being on your side. If you can produce any, I will be on my knees in a second.

            You have a different definition of reality, reality can be seen, smelt, touched, measured and so, some aspects of reality can only be measured by the effect that they have. Reality is found by the Vatican observatory and its brilliant researchers, among things they are investigating is the idea of dark matter, a substance that can only be seen by its effect on the universe around it. Its effect is constant and predictable – as your evidence must be. Repeating yet again there is no evidence against the existence of whatever it is you like to believe in, I simply do not believe that what you believe is correct.

          • Fr. James says:

            Reality is not just natural phenomena. It includes the reality of human nature.

      • David says:

        I cite no biblical verses. I make no appeal to Natural law. My concern is the consequence of weakening the institution of marriage. Re-defining it, I believe will weaken the institution. I do believe that homosexuals should be free to live their sexual lives as they choose.

        It is disingenuous to find the worst argument and attribute this to the entire side. Some people hate homosexuals or believe that homosexuals are bad people, and thus don’t want to grant them the right to marry on that basis. This is clearly a poor argument. It’s not the argument of the Catholic Church. It’s not the argument of any sane Conservative.

        We should strive to understand our differences. If we give our opponents no credence and attribute the worst motives we are deluding ourselves.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          The institution of marriage has already been weakened by allowing multiple divorces. An argument could be made that allowing gay people to marry is actually going to make it stronger with a broader base of participants. In addition, if your assumption that gay marriage is the potential cause of weakening marriage, why don’t I hear about the evils of divorce at least as frequently as I do about the evils of gay marriage? How about making adultery a capital offense? That would keep people on the straight and narrow in their marriages, wouldn’t it? :)

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            realist 1:43 David’s ‘gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage..’

            Great response to David’s opinion about weakening the institution of marriage. As you say, there is so much more discussion about gay marriage but little about divorce. Divorce weakens marriage, gays marrying do not. The “institution of marriage” is also weakened by poverty.

            While reading up on this a few weeks ago, I was surprised to learn about poor women. Women living on the edge often desire children, but see children through marriage as a step backwards. Most of their potential marriage partners are unemployed men. To marry one, then, moves a woman economically backward instead of forward. This means more single parent households.

            In summary, gays do not cause divorce nor marriageless poverty. It’s time to stop this ridiculous talk of gays hurting marriage.

          • David says:

            I agree with regard to divorce. It is by far the biggest problem we have, but it is cultural. It’s not easy and nearly impossible to walk back. The roots of no fault divorce lie at least to some extent women’s rights. Marriage to intellectuals created second class citizenship for women. They were trapped at the will of a man. To some degree this was true. Today society has changed in many ways for the better in regard to expectations of how a husband should treat his wife. However, with the advent of no fault divorce we see a sharp weakening of marriage to the point where today culturally we have re-defined it to be some amorphous thing about love. For better or worse or until a better one comes along. I don’t know the remedy but it’s more than just the no-fault divorce statutes. The redefinition of marriage to be something far less than a life commitment to a family, but something so ephemeral as the feeling of love has at its core lead to cultural decay.

            This to my surprise is why it is so impossible to get anywhere with anyone with regard to the question of gay marriage. Those in favor are adamant that marriage is about being with the one you love. Those who think gay marriage makes no sense, see the very definition of marriage and its purpose withering away.

            It’s a non-sequitur to argue that gay marriage weakens marriage. I have tried to argue that redefining marriage, which has happened culturally, has weakened marriage. Gay marriage is just the formal legal adoption of this amorphous definition.

            I agree that one could argue that gay marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage. I hope that is the case. However, what I fear it means is that culturally we have already redefined marriage into something that lacks meaning. If it lacks meaning it will whither, with resulting carnage. But I truly hope you are correct.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            David 5:37 re gay marriage

            You, and countless others, use the phrase “institution of marriage”. While that way of describing it, and other practices, it throws the argument in a little different direction. Marriage is not an “institution” the was a city government or General Motors are institutions. Marriage is a practice and/or custom. It serves a variety of purposes. Those who argue gay marriage is about “being with the one you love” are referring to but one purpose. It also have a tax purpose and economic security purpose. Those purposes benefit both the individuals involved and society.

            If we as a society decide marriage has but one purpose, to produce children, we’d have to change many laws and customs, disallowing marriage for other purposes.

            The simple approach usually the best. Give people equal opportunity. That’s what is happening as approval of gay marriage moves across the country.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Jon 1:11 I think You’ve hit the nail on the head. No matter what My opinion or Yours or anyone’s opinion about Gay sex or abortion two topics of frequent conversation as of late These will continue whether legal or illegal the question is what kind of Society are We going to have? When I look at the war on drugs as an example is criminalizing addicts the best way to go? I think We need to look at things from cause and effect.

          • David says:

            Call it what you like. When I speak of the institution of marriage I think all I am referring to is how marriage is commonly known to us in this society. Part of what makes this so, is tradition. Part of what defines marriage is culture. A big part of what defines this is law.

            Tradition, the tradition in the United States, would suggest that marriage is a religious event that is between a man and a woman that is at the root of family. The law essentially reflects this. Culturally we have moved to something new. We are firmly in the “be with the one you love” era. This goes against tradition, which most Liberals do not value. Additionally, this goes against law, which is why we are seeing change.

            If from a legal standpoint we make marriage whatever anyone wants it to be then as an institution as a common meaning – and despite your protestations there is and will be a common meaning – marriage will have no meaning. The institution, the tradition, the very definition of what it means to be married will change and not have any value to society. It ceases to be of any interest to anyone except a bunch of old fuddy duddies like me. Individuals will cling to the traditional view, but culture and society will erode that meaning over time.

            It has never been a question of equality to me. It is a question from a traditional standpoint, from a cultural standpoint and from a legal standpoint – what does marriage mean? What is our common understanding of marriage as a society. Today those that have the traditionalist view or perhaps unknowingly cling to this meaning within their own lives have better economic and social outcomes. Those that are the product of the new cultural definition tend to live in an uncertain world and bequeath this uncertainty to their children. Gay marriage is a merely a byproduct of this new definition. Those fighting against gay marriage are behind the curve in that the definition of marriage has been changing the last 70 years.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            David 7:57 “It has never been a question of equality to me.”

            That kind of sums up my argument. You have your view of the purpose of marriage. I have one. There are countless others. Thus, the purpose of marriage is what individuals getting married decide it to be.

            As for equality, I would guess the ONE big issue causing the majority of wars and bitter disputes is equality. We never achieve it, but where the issue crops up it swamps other issues, like marriage.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          David, I get that older generations cling to a solid black and white definition of marriage. Life is not black and white, and rarely has been in our society. Questionable decisions are made all the time that maybe are 40% right and 40% wrong anjd 20% amorphous.

          That doesn’t make the wrong part right, nor the right part wrong. Leaders have to make decisions based on ethical paradigms. Individual vs. group, justice vs. mercy, and so on.

          I would like to ask the question. What is wrong with the “decay of marriage”. Why not let people find out that someone is an abusive jack ass and let them leave without a bunch of BS? Let people naturally end up with people that are better for them? What’s so bad about not having a definition of marriage? Let those that believe in it be married and let those that see marriage as an impediment to happyness be happy?

          Why should one group get their way on everyone else? They ran society for a long time and we found that the strict standards didn’t work. Lastly, bringing God into this (not religion), God, I thought wants to build us up as people, why not let people be with people that encourage, support, and build them up, rather than make them be miserable, hurt, and torn down because they’re locked into a legal contract that if they leave the abuse they get screwed out of everything they’ve worked for in life?

  5. Fr. James says:

    Those of us defending the natural family still have the high moral ground. Majority rule does not make something moral. That is a very slippery slope. There is harm that comes from undermining social structures like marriage. For us nothing has changed and we will not give up, regardless of media propaganda. NB: Suddenly you seem to want to use the idea of morality and truth as if they are set in stone, interesting.

    The religious liberty argument is being proven correct daily. We have seen in Canada and Europe that even making a claim for natural marriage can be punished. Use of hate crimes and “discrimination” laws against us constitutes a hate crime and real discrimination. Quite ironic really. In fact homosexuals target florists, photographers, and others whom they know don’t agree with them in order to force them to participate. In academia students are persecuted if they don’t toe the line, profs already make sure that conservatives don’t get hired. Many of us believe that at some not to distant point we will be subject to outright persecution for our beliefs. Perhaps jail for us who are leaders, but others will be denied higher education, jobs in teaching or counseling or law, and the use of coercion (for example seizing children from homes where Christian morals are taught on the grounds of “abuse”). What a brave new world you are making.

    • Adam Heckathorn says:

      Fr. James it seems like You’re justifying treating others in the very manner Your worried about being treated to prevent them from treating You in the manner You want to treat Them. I think this is unreasonable.

      • Wolfy32 says:

        Yup…. no wonder people succomb to mindless drones sitting in the pews… The circular rhetoric gets to be hipnotic. People go into a highly suggestive state and become unaware of their own thoughts.

      • Fr. James says:

        Adam, I discriminate against no one. It is the homosexuals who are pushing this and they will not allow anyone to dissent. Frankly, I full expect to be persecuted. It has already begun and you seem perfectly fine with it. My point is proven. An article you might find interesting:

        http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1173

        • Adam Heckathorn says:

          Fr James I apologize for not responding sooner. I struggle to keep up and I appreciate You took the time to reply. I actually did find that article interesting and well thought out. I find the idea of persecution of Catholics here unlikely but rest assured I stand ready to defend Your rights and the rights of all Catholics to freedom of Conscience, and freedom of speech among other rights if You we’re to lose those rights My own would also certainly be diminished so in willingness to defend Your rights I see more security for My own. I had a friend named Louie Jackopitch I’m probably spelling it wrong He went to prison because of His faith as one of JWs during WWII. He told Me The Communists Who for the most part were highly educated were in prison also and they would come around and insult the Witness’s telling Them They Were foolish for there Beliefs so One day Louie said, He was of Slovenian descent “If You were in charge what would You do den.” To which the Communist said something to the effect of throwing various groups in prison starting with the prison guards to which Louie answered. “If You were in charge what would be the difference den?” He said They quit harassing The Witness’s after that. I fear that often the right some people want most is the right to take away the rights of Others

    • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

      This is just nothing but sheer unadulterated Christian Persecution Syndrome. So, tell me, just what are the consequences of baking a cake for the wedding of two men or two women? Does it get you eternal damnation or perhaps just a brief stay in purgatory? What’s really going on here is that you’re frightened to death that so many people are rejecting the Church’s “homosexuality is a sin” argument that your whole rigid belief system will crumble in a heap around you.

      • Fr. James says:

        Would you demand that a black baker bake a cake for the Klan with a picture of a lynching on it for MLK Day? What would be the harm in that? Please do answer this one for me. Please.

  6. Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

    I think when they released the audio on Friday we’re going to hear this same kind of nonsense applied to women and their right to make their own health decisions.

    • Fr. James says:

      The issue is whether others that have religious beliefs must pay for women and their decisions. That is nonsense indeed.

      • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

        The issue is imposing the religious beliefs of owners on employees.

        Companies don’t have religious beliefs, people do.

        No one gets to decide what you believe, even the person who signs your pay check.

        • josh says:

          I agree with “No one gets to decide what you believe”, but you don’t have the right to make me pay for them. You want birth control? Quit being such a cheap ass.

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            It’s not your money. It’s the company’s money and a company doesn’t have religious beliefs.

            Even if that weren’t true, because of the messed up health insurance delivery system we have you’re still out of luck. It’s entirely in bounds for the government to determine what minimum coverage standards health insurance must provide.

            If we had a single payer system like most of the rest of the world your “you can’t make me pay” argument would be moot. You wouldn’t even advance it, unless you’re one of those nutty folks who think citizens should be able to make a la carte decisions about where their tax dollars are spent.

          • josh says:

            Yeah I guess it’s nutty to have a say in how your tax dollars are spent. What an insane concept.  Well we can certainly see what side of the political spectrum you fall on Comrade.
            When I say me I mean as a business owner. Lets see, companies have ownership. The owner has religious beliefs. Thus the owner should be able to determine what benefits he gives to his employees, but of course under Obamacare his rights get stripped away. Again!

          • entech says:

            Terrible, they will expect wages next. Paid holidays for full time workers.

          • josh says:

            Entech. In our country we have choice, amazing concept huh? You can choose to work for an employer or not work for an employer. Since when is a business forced to provide benefits to it’s employees that it doesn’t want too? Oh yes, in the new era of obamacare where personal freedoms take a back door to the needs of the collective.
            or

        • David says:

          Nonsense. Should an employer have to pay for birth control? Should an owner have to pay for abortions? Insurance is a mere conduit – especially the way health insurance works today.

          A women working for hobby lobby could simply pay for her own abortion – the way things used to be. She could simply pay for her own birth control – the way it used to be. There is no denying of the right to get these services. It is a matter of who pays.

          Hobby Lobby is not deciding someone’s beliefs. It is merely trying not to be complicit in affairs that run counter to the beliefs of the owners of the company.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            David 6:51 “She could simply pay for her own birth control–the way it used to be…It’s a matter of who pays.”

            Some birth control medicines are necessary for illnesses unrelated to pregnancies. If a business is entangled with the Fed. government, or Fed. standards, and the goal of the Fed. program is the overall health of citizens, the narrow religious views of some employer should not prevail.

            It makes more sense to me the employer practices his religion in his own personal life and conducts his business as part of his secular life.

          • David says:

            Jon, this seems to be such a narrow exception that it’s flimsy ground upon which to make an argument.

            You have antipathy for religion, particularly that of Hobby Lobby. Perhaps it would make more sense to draw an analogy. Let’s say the federal government forced every employer to purchase a Catholic magazine for their employees. The employees argue that some people need the magazine in order to better argue against Catholicism. The atheist owner objects and argues that this is violating his first amendment right. The government comes back and says – we’re not establishing a religion and we’re not forcing YOU to practice the religion. Plus, you’re a corporation and you can have no religion.

            The whole law stinks. These are decisions that are best left to private arrangements. The overreaching of the law is so profound that we are forced to have a discussion like this in the first place.

            Finally, this argument has been based upon religious grounds. Would it change anyone’s view from an equitable sense if the person was an atheist but was adamantly against abortion on moral grounds? They probably wouldn’t have a case, but it makes the point that people will be forced to pay for something which is against their moral views.

            If the government was going to try this, they should have just gone for single payer. All this would have been avoided. This system is a mess – not that I would have much hope for a single payer system working. However, at least with single payer, the government wouldn’t be forcing employers to be complicit in their mendacity.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            David 5:49 “..they should have gone for single payer.”

            That is the only rational answer. Obama wanted to do this I understand, but it was politically impossible.

          • David says:

            Single payer is not rational in my book as you encounter some of the same problems nationwide. You then have people adamantly opposed to abortion paying for abortion through their taxes. You have atheists sending money to Catholic hospitals where undoubtedly there is some sort of ministry to the sick. Or you have the reverse where abortions aren’t paid for depending upon who is in the white house. What a disaster.

            ObamaCare is a predictable disaster. Saying that single payer, which likely would have been less of a disaster, is an argument for not passing anything at all. What we currently have is a system that has been so severely screwed up by the government that if it wasn’t purposeful it is the height of incompetence. Neither speaks well for those who passed it. I think there will be a great deal more pain with this new system with very, very little to show in the way of results.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            David 8:11 “Obamacare is a predictable disaster.”

            It definitely has not been a disaster. A disaster would be a program that was withdrawn, folded. Several million have signed up–it’s on its way.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            The disaster is those that have suffered because of lack of access to health care.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            What has been the alternative put forward to solve the healthcare problem? Nothing those that oppose the arrangement We have are in essence saying “If it doesn’t effect Me personally it doesn’t matter. What healthcare problem?”

          • Henry says:

            Adam:“The disaster is those that have suffered because of lack of access to health care. “

            Who are ALL these people? The ACA sign-up rates were extremely low indicating there was not a need that wasn’t already being fulfilled. Please tell.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Henry 1:50 I typed in ACA sign up numbers Here’s the first thing that came up. http://acasignups.net/ Henry when My wife Had Her heart attack I had some of the best health insurance money could buy through My Union. When I couldn’t care for Her and raise three Children and work full time I eventually lost My health insurance. Health insurance problems have been the bane of My existence. “Who are ALL these people?” Your reading the words of One right now. It’s well known that the number one cause of bankruptcy in America is catastrophic health problems. I have not gone bankrupt but I also have not paid My bills as fast as some would like nor have I cooperated with those who feel I owe them penalties for what is really My wife’s catastrophic health problems. I have acted in what I’m confident most if not all reading this would agree is the most responsible manner possible and yet there are those that would treat Me without dignity. Those would be Republicans.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Should it be a Sin to get sick?

          • Henry says:

            Adam, your troubles are nothing unusual. When I had my own troubles in my early twenties, wife significantly sick and two young kids to manage, I got kicked in the teeth many times mostly from democrat operatives. That is the way it worked. Filled with anger, I initially handled it poorly in not giving thanks for what I was given.

            We are in a fallen world. The sweat should be rolling off of our brow as we navigate through all the weeds of life. Give thanks for all circumstances.

          • Henry says:

            Adam:“Should it be a Sin to get sick?”

            A symptom of original sin.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Henry 5:04 “We are in a fallen world. The sweat should be rolling off of our brow as we navigate through all the weeds of life. Give thanks for all circumstances.” Or We could have Universal health care coverage. One thing I learned from My experience there was a time when I realized no mater how many hours I stayed awake or how hard I worked how diligently I planned I was going three steps back for every step forward but I also figured out its better to go two steps backward than three. and eventually when the opportunity finally came to make a lunge forward and get out of this rut I seized it and kept going forward. This is Our Opportunity for the whole country it will help 99% of all Americans and eventually I believe even the 1% that don’t benefit as directly as the rest of Us will benefit from living in a better Society and in other indirect ways.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Henry 5:07 Adam:“Should it be a Sin to get sick?”

            A symptom of original sin.

            I think it’s more a symptom of a mindless Society Lets do something about it even if it’s wrong or less than perfect oh wait We already did do something about it The AHC (ObamaCare).

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Here is an article that seems a nonpoliticized effort to figure out how well or how badly AHC is working. It looks like this first phase will not be as good as the Adminstration had hoped–not as many young people. But, it doesn’t look like a “disaster” either, like it is portrayed by much of the press.

            It’s something new and both and Adminstration and the public are feeling their way along. When the public figures out they need to, for example, not go to an expensive emergency room for oridinary issues, and doctors learn they get to keep some of the money saved, maybe something better than what we have will be the result.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            Adam, what I don’t agree with is creating more dependency on government regulation and government hand outs.

            I do agree that medical schools should allow more applicants into the schools and that it should be cheaper for medical staff to receive the education they need to succeed. I also do know that medical staff would need less money if they had easier and cheaper access to medical school. In turn hospitals could pay well trained medical staff much less money and then they could charge snigificantly less money for services! Services would then increase in volume and people could then overall be healthier by having more preventive maintenance done at less of a charge.

            Insurance prices could be significantly reduced for the same coverage levels. Making it less likely to have people file bankruptcy etc so banks and medical centers would be significantly more stable!

          • Henry says:

            I don’t view it as a right for a person who NEEDS money to, by force, dig their hand in another’s pocket to extract funding for their own crisis. In the modern era, we have devised very clever methods to forcibly extract money from people who may in fact have their own crisis to pay for. We pick winners and losers.

            Sometimes one has to consolidate their life and go without some services to keep going. If it means moving into a one bedroom basement apartment with no telephone, cable, internet, and no vehicle in order to prioritize paying for critical expenses, that is what needs to happen. If one has been involved with other people in staying in relationship with friends, family, and church, this can be very helpful to weather through crisis. Give thanks.

            ACA (in theory) will allow people in crisis to keep riding their $10,000 Ski-Doo, keep their $250,000 home, keep their $60,000 Ranger boat, and their full internet/cell phone/telephone/dish tv package, while others pay significantly more for medical insurance, whether they want it or not. Winners and losers. Everyone has the perception ACA will take care of the issues. As time progresses, we are finding out more detail on ACA, years after we initially bought into it.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Henry 5:57 “I don’t view it as a right for a person who NEEDS money to, by force, dig their hand in another’s pocket to extract funding for their own crisis.” Every time I hear this kind of argument I think of A Gal I know who’s a thalidomide Baby. She’s elderly now and She has extremely short limbs and I get this mental image of Her trying in vain to pull Herself up by Her own bootstraps.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            I’ve enjoyed the discussion today and regret that I have to take My daughter to the Dentist but look forward to reading more later. I must admit I find these discussions addictive!

          • Henry says:

            Adam:“She’s elderly now and She has extremely short limbs and I get this mental image of Her trying in vain to pull Herself up by Her own bootstraps.”

            As you have framed her situation, it is surprising she has survived at all prior to implementation of ACA.

        • Fr. James says:

          Companies are legal persons and owned by real persons, both have rights. You can believe what you like on contraception, but YOU should pay for it. Not the guy who signs your check.

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            This is just a crazy line of reasoning. I don’t know what my both thinks about contraception and I don’t care. He doesn’t know what I think a bout contraception and he doesn’t care. Companies do not have religious convictions.

            I don’t whether you pay me in healthcare premiums or in money that I then take and by healthcare with. Do you? Either way as an employee I’m being compensated the same and I’m getting coverage. This isn’t about who’s money it is. It’s about who gets to make the decisions. The correct answer to that question is the employee, not the employer.

          • Fr. James says:

            Not crazy at all. It is part of our law. People own businesses and they do have beliefs. If you pay for something it is on you. I have no obligation to pay for something that you want that violates my faith. You can make any decision you like, but YOU pay for it.

      • Adam Heckathorn says:

        They pay for insurance leave the decision to the Individual. If I give money to a catholic charity do I have to agree with everything anyone ever did in the name of Catholicism.

        • Fr. James says:

          You are not required to give to Catholic charities. It is your choice.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Your right perhaps it was a poor example. I think the example of compensation is better because in reality health insurance is compensation. Should Jehovah’s Witness’s be able to exclude blood transfusions? Should Peta Members be able to exclude meat in hospital meals?

  7. Dan says:

    “Marriage is…the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness…. It is the man and woman united that makes the complete human being….. man has not nearly the value he would have in the state of union. He is an incomplete animal; he resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors.”
    Benjamin Franklin – According to Jon, a moral lesser and a Founding Father of the U.S.

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      When did Jon ever judge the moral character of Ben Franklin?

      Franklin also said: “Where there is marriage without love, there will be love without marriage.”

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Dan 9:42 “Benjamin Franklin…”

      While you are quoting Ben Franklin, maybe you would like to continue on and discuss a view he had for several years and wrote about. It was there were several gods, each of the planets had a god. Ol’ Ben was like the Bible. He wrote all of his adult life, changes his views on many topics, and nearly everyone can find some quote to bolster their point of view.

      • Wolfy32 says:

        very similarly to the bible in terms of views on many topics and sometimes conflicting views as well as anyone can find any vers that supports their point of view.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>