Instrumentalities of crime, according to today's Ethics Dunce
In Somers Point, New Jersey, the proprietors of the bridal shop Here Comes the Bride refused to sell a bridal gown to a lesbian woman, saying that it refused to aid and abet “illegal actions.”
Never mind that gay marriages are not “illegal,” but simply are not recognized by the law in many places, which is something completely different. Never mind that Alix Gintner’s marriage is going to be legal, since the ceremony will be in New York.
That is all beside the point. An officious, mean-spirited and brain-wiltingly ignorant woman intentionally ruined what should have been a joyous day for a young woman and her family out of pure bigotry and hate.
Alix picked out the dress she wanted at the shop and left an order, but unknowingly lit the fuse for the controversy by crossing out “groom'” and writing “partner” on the form. The proprietor told the Philadelphia Inquirer that writing the word “partner” was basically a provocation, evidence of a need “to show that she’s different.” “They get that way,” she explained. The store owner called Alix, saying that she wouldn’t work with the bride-to-be because she’s gay. “She also said that I came from a nice Jewish family, and that it was a shame I was gay. She said, ‘There’s right, and there’s wrong. And this is wrong.’ ” recalls Alix.
Yes indeed, there is right and there is wrong, and this is what’s wrong:
- Treating another human being, who only wants to buy a dress and celebrate a loving relationship, like a second class citizen.
- Imposing a personal moral view, and an especially archaic, ignorant and offensive one at that, on a couple whose conduct in no way impinges on your life or does any person harm.
- Withholding a product or a service based only on prejudice, ignorance and bigotry.
- Hurting other human beings and denigrating their lives and character without cause or justification.
- Hating.
- Being willfully dumber than Christine O’Donnell after a lobotomy.
That’s what’s wrong. If Here Comes the Bride thinks it can thrive in any community by refusing to sell merchandise to gay Americans, let it be honest and candid about it: let it put a prominent sign in the window that says “No Gowns Sold to Lesbians,” like some saloons used to post “No Indians, Niggers or Chinese” signs in the Old West. Then decent and fair citizens could make their own decisions about whether they want to patronize a bridal shop with these un-American values, or endorse those values by buying merchandize there. That would be fair, and would have spared Alix Gintner the indignity of having a cerebrum-deprived bigot metaphorically spit in her face for daring to love someone with the same number of chromosomes.
Though it is too late to help Alix, it does seem that the news of how Here Comes the Bride feels that it can pass judgment on its customers’ choices of life partners is getting around, thanks to the internet. If the system of societal shunning and shaming works the way it should, it won’t be long before Here Comes the Bride isn’t in a position to ruin anyone else’s wedding plans.
Let’s give that day to Alix as a wedding present, shall we?
Ethics Alarms 
Pingback: Ethics Dunce: Somers Point, N.J. Bridal Shop, Here Comes the Bride … « Ethics Find
Jack; a private business should have a sacred right to pick their own clientele. They should also stand up for their own principles and those of their other clientele. Opposing the homosexual agenda is not bigotry. It’s principle. If this lesbian “couple” wants something for their faux marriage, there are, no doubt, plenty of less-principled outlets to meet their needs. Why, one might ask, did they try to force their custom on this store in particular? Want to bet that they knew in advance what response they’d get and had sought, from the beginning, to make a “bigotry” issue out of it? This is the kind of tactics that the “Gay Community” pursues constantly. Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with cohabitation and never did. It’s just a means to political power- through deceit- by a very few over very many.
They have a right to run their business cruelly and hatefully, and citizens have an obligation to show them that such conduct won’t be tolerated, by exercising their sacred right to do their business elsewhere. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, and everything to do with simple politeness and decency.
Indeed, it DOES have everything to do with decency. I’d submit, though, that the fault in that respect did not lie with the bridal shop.
You are absolutely insane if you think no fault lies with the bridal salon. You are right that this woman can think whatever she so chooses, whether or not it makes her a disgusting piece of dirt or not. However she had no problem serving her clients for their entire appointment and only until they had left, after making their purchase, when she realized what this girl was not acting with accordance to her, personal beliefs, did she decide to call up this poor girl and blatantly discriminate against her. How is this any different from not serving people of a different race, except that it’s not so obvious when someone is gay? Should she had worn a name card “Hi, I’m a Lesbian” into the store, to avoid these problems? Perhaps painted the word across her face? This woman didn’t even know this girl was gay until after she left. This means that she was rubbing it in the woman’s face, she wasn’t acting in any “stereotypical” fashion. So please tell me. WHAT should this girl have done differently?
Regardless of her opinions, or yours, Donna is legally obliged to serve Alix, her family, or any others, that comes into her store. And really, it’s a business’ right to refuse service when the clientele is rude or causing problems. It’s poor business to just turn people away. I hope someone exercises the right to refuse you their business some time. We’ll see how you like it.
I’ve never been so ashamed to be a Christian in my whole life. It’s people like this that make me want to run as far from religion as possible.
Gosh, tell us how you really feel. ;-P
A private business has a right to refuse service, but what right do they have to lecture clientele and try and impose their sense of morality on them? If they had such a problem with it, all they had to say was, “Sorry, we’re not going to be able to have that ready for you.” They didn’t have to push their agenda on Alix Gintner but going out of their way to tell her how degenerate she is.
I’ll say this: the first store that refuses to sell me merchandise because I’m a lawyer, bald, in show business (where all those degenerates hang out, don’t you know) or don’t think Obama walks on water is going to have a serious problem.
“Don’t make me angry; you won’t like me when I’m angry.”
———- Dr. David Banner
Jack: With those collective attributes, you’re virtually unique!
Ha! Don’t get me wrong; I agree with you wholeheartedly. It just annoys me that bigots are so stupid with how they go about being bigoted. They seem to out of touch with reality in that each and every one thinks, “I know the last guy that tried this was lambasted, but people are gonna listen to me this time! This time it’s gonna be different!”
If a private business owner wants to deny business to someone for whatever reason, I’ll never understand why they think it’s a good idea to be public about their reasoning.
A girl getting ready to take her vows in some convents will also buy a wedding gown. I wonder what the shop owner would think about this.
She can think what she wants. Just sell the gown!
That’s all just plain silly, guys. You can “what if” this to death at this rate. And it sidesteps the issue.
Marlene: I’d submit that this lesbian couple were already pushing their own agenda on the storeowner by their own presence. This is what homosexual marriage is all about, anyway. It’s a political whip to cowe others into submission. It just didn’t work here. Besides, homosexuals rarely have longstanding relationships. They have liaisons; pointless, unloving and often brutal. Dignifying such hook-ups as marriages degrades normal people… which is likely why the shopowner refused their custom. Frankly, I would have done the same. Principles- as well as making a profit- should guide a successful business.
Wow….I sincerely hope you are joking, or trying to make a point about the callousness and ignorance of people. If not, you are a truly ignorant individual. I know several gay couples that have been in very long-term and happy marriages for many years. Others I know are searching for love and hoping for the same things as the rest of us. Someone to settle down with and maybe in start a family. I also know many straight couples that have gotten divorced, slept around or had “pointless liaisons”.
I’m not sure what has made you such an expert on gay sex? Perhaps some repressed feelings there? Shot down a few too many times? I can’t speculate, I’ll leave that to you.
But if you can’t face facts (which you can’t…or you refuse to acknowledge so no point in stating anyway), you SHOULD understand that the law governs this woman’s behavior, as a store owner. She broke it. She was blatantly discriminatory.
I also want to point out (again since you can’t face facts), the “lesbians” were not there. A girl and her family were there. She bought a dress, the whole time not pushing any agenda. It wasn’t until the family left that this woman realized and then called back to deny service in an unprofessional and disgusting display of ignorance.
You know what degrades “normal people”? Bigoted, ignorant a-holes.
Ignorance. Bigotry. You’re a repressed queer-boy. A-hole. The entire PC playbook litany… right down the list. Thanks, Kat. No more needed here.
Successful business, eh? Well let’s see how succesfull this shop will be after what the’ve done to the poor girl! And please, stop expressing yourself, apparently you’re stuck in the XV th century, it’s shamefull!!
Oh, I agree. Please do stop expressing yourself.
Steven, how can you claim that gays have liaisons; pointless, unloving and often brutal whether they are rarely withstanding when the divorce rate amongst hetersosexuals is at 51%? Explain that. Heterosexuals, in this country have been the first to demoralize and publicize marriage for gain, (financial, publicity, etc.) such as “Who wants to marry a millionaire?” “The Bachelor” “The Bachelorette” “Rock of Love” and the list goes on endlessly. If two people, regardless of their orientation decide to join in a union, how does that affect the union you have with your partner?
Arrgh! Sorry, but I vowed never to let that phony stat to stand unchallenged on Ethics Alarms. Nobody knows what percentage of marriages end in divorce, but best estimates are between 25 and 39 per cent. The 50% figure is reached by matching a year’s divorces against the same year’s weddings—see the problem? The divorces arising from AAAAAAlll the marriages before a given year and that year are compared to the marriages registered in ONE year. It’s ridiculous, but people use it, pretty much the way you just did, to make various political points.
Please don’t repeat the fake stat, and call out anyone else who does. It’s just not true/
What is this homosexual agenda? Where can I find a copy? Did all the homosexuals have a big convention and take a vote? What was the vote? Did bisexuals only get half a vote? I really like to know the answers to all these because Steven you seem to have them all. You know that all gay people act, and think, and vote, and love, and have sex the exact same way. They are all the same. Every single one of them. They are out to take over the world and ruin it for good god-fearing Christians like you! Well unless the Jews or the New World Order stops them but I bet you’re working on them also.
You know what you are Steven? You are mean spirited narrow, minded old man who wouldn’t recognize Jesus Christ and his teachings of compassion and love if he walked up to you and read them to you on the street.
Bill- they have conventions, meetings, streetshows, etc., all the time… and in most they display their sickness of mind for all to see. What planet are you living on? Then you proceed to attack Christians and Jews (associating us with this New World Order… or whatever) and then go on to try to get Jesus Himself on your side! Like most non-Christians, it’s YOU who have no true grasp of his mission and his message. Nor, I think, do you care to. If you did, you’d realize that the focus of His ministry was to lead Mankind away from sin. He died a cruel death in that endeavor. Don’t trivialize His sacrifice by trying to turn Him into a liberal poster boy for perversion and despotism.
Steven,
I’m not attacking Christians and Jews. I’m attacking YOU. And how do you know my religious beliefs or faith? Because I don’t agree with you assume I’m not a Christian? My,My,My,you have an inflated opinion of yourself. I thought the way to salvation was through Jesus Christ. I didn’t know I that I had to pass through a door called Steven.
You claim to be a Christian but all I see you do is spew forth hate and anger, things that Jesus has told us not to do. He tells us:
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
And I think these two verses fit you perfectly:
“Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.”
“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”
Get a mirror buddy you need it.
How does this bridal shop stay open? Business is business. The idea is to make money. A lesbian’s money is as good as anybody else’s. If a shop is open to the public, it should be willing to provide goods and services to the public. The owner does not have to like the idea of a gay marriage or the idea that this may be the bride’s fifth marriage etc., but. in my opinion if she is open to the public she does have to serve them. The purpose of doing business is not to approve or disapprove of the lifestyles of customers. I happen to agree with Jack on this one. It has everything to do with the politeness of doing business. The shop owner should be impartial and should not get involved in the private lives of customers.
A shop owner is a small businessman and has the right to conduct business with whomever he likes (or doesn’t) in an honest manner. This is a matter of PRIVATE ownership. Stores are not publically owned and operated under the political guidelines of state bureaucrats. Yet. Apparently, a sufficient number of the the store’s clientele think well enough of it’s services to keep it in business. Maybe it would be otherwise if the store were infested with out-of-state bulldykes and their missies.
No need to use offensive language. Surely we can have an adult discussion here without pulling out the slurs.
Anyway, with regards to your comment up ways a bit: The whole agenda argument doesn’t float with me. I’d argue that Christian conservatives and you are being even louder and pushier about your own agenda. The store wanted to discriminate and made a point of letting the reason be known; that strikes me as a hell of a bigger grandstand than the lady who scratched out the word “groom.”
Slurs?? If Christians are seeming “loud & pushy”, did you ever take a good look at who we’re up against and what their tactics entail? Next to them, we’re meek little lambs. If we’re speaking out more, that’s because the very future of Christianity and America are at stake. Nor do we need to resort to slurs, vileness or loud deceits or threats, as to the offenders. That’s contrary to who we are, anyway. A simple statement of truth is sufficient.
Google New Jersey discrimination law. You are clearly ignorant to what it says. As for your nonsensical anti-gay ramblings: Gay people exist. Their relationships are real and just as significant to them as those of straight people. You seem to want to deny all of this, but that is what is called burrying your head in the sand or plugging your ears and shouting “la la la” over the truth and things you know nothing about. You need to grow up and get the hell over it. I find it funny you claim not to speak out of prejudice and then you claim to be a Christian. You can’t even give this couple the simple dignity of being a couple. Instead you put “couple” in scare quotes. Ridiculous and sad. I wonder why you’re so bothered by gay people. It’s one thing to say a gay relationship is not for you, but you’ve gone way beyond that haven’t you? Seems you might be one of those guys who’s trying too hard to prove his manhood and his heterosexuality. I’ll leave that to your own introspection, assuming you’re capable of a shred of rational thought. So far the post I’ve read don’t leave me with much hope for that.
Good question, Horace, and I don’t think the shop will be open long. Next the owner will be refusing to sell gowns for inter-racial marriages, of May-December pairings, or inter-faith marriages, or if the bride is tall and the groom is short. What earthly business is it of hers?
That follows only if you equate this with those, Jack. But in any case, it remains at the descretion of the businessman as to whom he does business with. Just as its up to him to succeed or fail in his business based on his level of service to his customers. Many of us still regard marriage as a sacred contract with God, joining a man and a woman into a viable family for the continuity of life. When two women come into a store to buy bridal gowns- so they can “marry” each other!- this degrades others who are looking forward to a high point in their lives. Again; there are, no doubt, many stores in Greenwich Village who would be happy to fulfill the need. Let them. Leave decent people alone.
Wait and see. I’m betting that decent people will choose to let the bridal shop alone.
The store may well fail now, Jack… but not for the reason you state. There will no doubt follow a campaign of media defamation, political commentary and harrassing actions by homosexual groups and their politician minions. They habitually try to ruin in such a manner anyone brave enough to stand up to them and their agenda. Good people will likely shy away; not because of the storeowners’ principles, but for fear of being targetted themselves. This is not a new story by any means. The offenders know how vulnerable small businesses are to such tactics.
What defamation? I told the story–so will others. The store-owners are bigots, meddlers, and unkind. The fact that some think their bigotry is justified doesn’t change the fact that it is bigotry. I don’t believe in hurting people or denigrating their choices of partners, and thus I wouldn’t encourage anyone to patronize a store that does, because it increases the amount of hate in society, and there is already too much. I think most people agree with me, at this point. That’s hardly a sinister agenda.
“Sinister” is a small word for it, Jack. 1-2 % of the population- individuals who define themselves by the filthiest practices and concepts that the human mind can devise- are attempting dominion over the rest of us. They threaten our health, our culture, our livelihoods. our national security and our children’s bodies and souls. There is no factor of bigotry in opposing such things. This is stark evil we face and nothing less.
I don’t understand why one form of sex is “filth” and another isn’t. The same sex act is filthy if it is between the same genders but clean if between opposite genders? That’s odd. This seems like a matter of taste, no pun intended
I guess I also don’t see any threats, either. I know an awful lot of gays whose “agenda’ is the same as mine—they want to be happy and have productive lives with people they care about. Some day’ you’ll have to let me know, off site, where your strong feelings on this subject came from.
Because sex is a matter of a man and a woman uniting to form a child. The pleasurable aspect of it is nature’s way to encouage human beings- like all the higher forms of life- to “be fruitful and multiply”. With people, this union is sanctified by God in a permanent arrangement (ideally!) that we call marriage. This is to strengthen the family unit in its role as the basis of all decent and civilized society. It further promotes actual love- as opposed to animal lust- as the cementing factor in these unions.
Perversion is a denial of all that. It rejects gender and the roles gender naturally plays in human life and society. It rejects love and replaces it with lust. It further warps even natural lust by applying it in ways that are utterly unnatural and destructive. As with drug addicts, it creates a subculture unto itself based completely on illicit gratification of a form that ulitmately destroys its adherents and survives only on the recruitment of clueless youth into its tenets. It revels in its very foulness.
Most people over time have been content to turn away from this evil as long as it kept to itself, besides praying for their lost souls and hoping this might do some good. That was the mistake. As I’ve often said, depravity- unchecked- only leads to more and greater depravity. And so it has. For many of us, the ongoing attempts (and successes) by the deviant culture in infiltrating our schools and youth groups- openly reaching for our children to lure them into their darkness- was the final straw. There had to come this time somewhere. If children aren’t it, then that society is already doomed.
I’m sure you’re well-practiced at this debate, Steven, but it just doesn’t work. So sexual relations as an expression of love and intimacy between the sterile, the elderly, or the horny but protected is dirty? Non-procreative sex is dirty? Evil? Why is gratification illicit? Biologically sex is designed to encourage procreation, but why should that be a restriction? We can eat for enjoyment rather than nourishment—is that evil? We can run for enjoyment rather than to flee; we can fight for sport rather than protection, aggression or self-defense—perversion?
I’ve heard the argument in many forms, and it still strikes me as archaic, a remnant of a time long ago when homosexual relations DID threaten society, because having as many children as possible was a matter of a tribe’s survival. Now gays are helping the health of the world by NOT procreating. Society should be able to adjust quicker than this.
Actually, your views of sex aren’t even in accordance to the history of Christianity. You fundamentalists should really do your research. Historically ALL sex was dirty and discouraged. Man, woman, didn’t matter. THe idea was that the second coming of Christ was going to be very soon, so it was best to keep ourselves “pure”. Also, no need to procreate when the world was going to end!
Well people didn’t listen to all the preaching and the second coming didn’t happen so quickly after all, so the priests had to make some amendments. You realize that NONE of the rules regarding sex were added into any Christian writings until much later and were done so by priests/popes, very much known for their sexual exploitations?
I wouldn’t expect YOU to know this stuff though. You’re too busy living with your head up your ass to educate yourself. You know…read these crazy new-fangled things called BOOKS. You’re so busy preaching about how American is going to hell in a hand-basket you can’t even stop to realize it’s already there…but because of people like you! You, who can’t live and let live and just be happy, but instead have to leave a trail of unhappiness in your wake and constantly be unhappy as a result. Go on a vacation. Get a BJer! PLEASE!
I certainly regard marriage as a sacred contract, but I just don’t see how selling a bridal gown to a lesbian degrades other couples anymore than a straight bride who has wrecked a home. .Not all civil unions are considered sacramental marriages and this doesn’t just apply to gays. This is up to the churches to decide. I’m not a theologian.
It has no effect on society. The nuclear family was being eroded long before the massive explosion of the gay rights movement.
The erosion of the “nuclear family” has its roots in the rise of pornography, nihilism and the homosexual agenda- in company with media and political interests- that got started soon after WWII. This sort of thing just didn’t happen yesterday. And its effect has been both massive and tragic in its consequences. It represents a danger to this country as few external threats ever have.
I think you’re confusing correlation and causation.
Nope. I’m looking back on the history of these movements. They’re a lot more extensive than you realize.
You’re an idiot. You represent a danger to this country. You’re going to concentrate on made up problems so hard, you’ll miss the real problems and take everyone else down with you. There is no correlation. Go to college. A REAL college, not some insane agenda-pushing Christian cult college. Learn something! ANYTHING! ANYTHING about the WORLD that is real. PLEASE for the LOVE of GOD and all things HOLY!
Sally/Kat—please cool the invective, and read the comment guidelines. Thei only one who gets to use the I-word here is me, and it usually presages banning from the blog. There’s plenty of good ways to make the point that someone else is wrong, illogical and misguided. Insults don’t advance the ball at all.
Thanks.
Sul Ross State University, Class of 1983. I find your cries of “insane Christian cult” followed by “for the love of God and all things holy” strangely disparate.
Given your blatant homophobia, I can only assume you are the kind of person who would look at statistics on single-parent African-American households (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107) and claim that this indicates that black people shouldn’t marry either, and that the post-WWII desegregation movement was a bad idea?
You’re trying to make the old, tired and discredited analogy between civil rights for ethnic minorities and privileged class status for degenerates. First: The comparison is false, as racial heritage is genetic- whereas perversity is a mental disorder. Second: I think you’ll find that a solid majority of black people in America (to a likely greater percentage than whites!) not only reject your premise, but take personal offense at it. Homosexual activitists were so insensed at Mormons and black Christians for the passage of Proposition 8 in California that they attacked their churches in retaliation. It’s what we’ve come to expect from them. What you call “homophobia” (a political term intended to intimidate opposition) others call a sober realization of a radical threat to our nation. BTW: Properly translated, the term means “fear of men”!
He didn’t compare the two. He made the point that the behavior of some should not be cause to discriminate against all others in the same group or to forbid them from marriage and procreation specifically. There are comparisons to the plight of ethnic minorities to gays, though, since you bring it up. Of course, judging from your rhetoric so far, I don’t expect you to look into this and think it through and then discuss it honestly.
Sexual orientation is complex and not a mental disorder. It is also innate and immutable like skin color. These are examples of somthing fun called facts. Boy your ramblings just keep getting angrier and crazier. I’m starting to think more and more you’re a self-loathing repressed homosexual or some kind of actual sex pervert who feels better about himself by putting down long-term monogamous, consensual same sex relationships.
Let’s try to keep the speculative diagnoses to a minimum, all right? Practicing psychiatry without a license is unethical.
Actually, you’re translating in the wrong context. In the case of sexualities, which are placed under the category of biology, “homo” refers to “same”, and “hetero” refers to “different”. Think “homozygous” and “heterozygous”, or “homosexual” and “heterosexual”. Zygosity refers to the similarity of genes for a specific trait/characteristic in an organism. If both genes are the same, the organism is homozygous for the trait. If both genes are different, the organism is heterozygous for that trait. Hence, “homosexuality” refers to two of the same, and heterosexuality to two different. Take that and apply that to the term “homophobia”, it actually means “irrational fear of the same”, in this case, the “same” being referred to is two people of the same gender loving each other. Your translation of “fear” is also incorrect, as phobias are defined as “irrational fears”. It comes from the greek word Phóbos, meaning “morbid fear”. Today, a phobia is classified as an anxiety disorder, and defined as (here, let me rip this from “The Anxiety & Phobia Workbook”, says it better than I ever can): “defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.”
That’s right buddy, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders says that homophobia is a mental disorder.
Of course, the term now encompasses a broader definition thanks to culture behind it, but you really should do some research before you go making statements like that.
Also, to quote you- “The comparison is false, as racial heritage is genetic- whereas perversity is a mental disorder.”
Most mental disorders are genetic. In fact, the only reason I say “most” is because the ones that aren’t recognized as being genetic are only not recognized because they haven’t attempted or managed to trace the genetic code for the disorder. Mental illness is just like a whole load of other physical illnesses- if you have the genes, there’s a good chance you’ll get it. Take, for example, my family. Every single woman on my father’s side of the family has had breast cancer in their twenties to thirties, going back five generations, perhaps more, but undiagnosed. You don’t even need to take a peep at the genetic coding to know that there’s a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. The same applies to most mental illnesses. You’ll usually see a clear family trend.
Also, there is no mental disorder called “perversity” listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, nor is there a mental disorder called “homosexuality”. That’s because homosexuality isn’t a recognized mental disorder.
As my parting gift to you, here’s a link with which to educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies
I’d directly link you to the studies I’ve read, but as there are quite a lot of studies, and wikipedia summarizes the finds of all of them quite competently, you can just go there.
Also, as an extra tidbit:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/has-gay-gene-been-found-female-mice
Scientists found a gay gene in mice. They’re planning on conducting studies with human subjects next.
You’re welcome.
Jack: It’s not a matter of my being “well practiced”. I rarely have to debate this topic. However, I’ve seen the arguments- pro and con- and I have, frankly, seen nothing among your posters that is in any way new or thought provoking. It’s either litany or personal attack… or both in that order, as the poster quickly runs out of substance.
I’d state though, in response to your remarks, that marriage is there for the very reasons you state. In a wild and savage state, bestial lust is the primary factor in childbearing. No nuclear family. No rules beyond momentary lust. No God. Ironically, that is also true of a civilization that descends into the state of decadence. In fact, this is the hallmark of such a society as it completes the cycle of history back to savagery. A civilization, however, is prominent in its institution of marriage and the family unit- for procreation, unity, continuity and decency based on love before lust. When that factor erodes- when we come to a point of anything goes and “it takes a village”- then civilization deteriorates.
This is the point we’re at now. The only question is, have we reached the point of no return? If we have, then our civilization is already doomed, as others have fallen before us. Many of us, though, are willing to fight for the virtues of Christian society on the assumption that all is not yet lost. We have nothing to lose by trying. In fact, we’d be untrue to our faith if we did not.
Gay By Force .
Why not consider Here Comes the Bride’s actions againast Alix Gintner just desserts for Eric McKinley’s actions against eHarmony?
Huh?
How can a bridal shop’s discrimination against an innocent gay woman possibly be just desserts for a completely different person over-reaching by insisting that a match service expand its services to gays? Is there some satiric point here that I’m missing?
That overreaching by McKinley demonstrates that they are not content to leave well-enough alone, and they must be opposed wherever and whenever they can be opposed.
Ah. You are joking, then. Good one.
Impossible for me to comment on all of that without using the I-word.
I understand.
Dr. Marshall, you are absolutely right with this. If one is going to do business in our society, that person has no right to post a sign that reads, “We happily welcome your business unless you are a wop, nigger, fag, spick, kike, lesbo, or retard.” That’s what these people have done. There is no place for this kind of discrimination in the business world. Thanks for calling them out for it.
@Steven Mark Pilling: You keep insisting that “a shop owner is a small businessman and has the right to conduct business with whomever he likes (or doesn’t)…” While that may be generally true, in this case, it’s absolutely false, and in fact illegal, specifically because the store manager indicated that she refused to provide goods/services based on a client’s sexual orientation. Have a look at the first paragraph on the following webpage (State of NJ, Office of the Attorney General): http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/accom.html
So, in addition to being morally reprehensible and a poor business-person, the owner of the store has actually committed an illegal act herself, and should be prosecuted for it to the fullest extent of the law.
Patrick—I didn’t feel like wading into the legal morass of whether a bridal shop is a “public accommodation’ under the law, and still don’t. This is an ethics blog, and whether such conduct was legal or not, it is ethically wrong, though being a legal violation adds another layer. If stores are covered by the law, it is incompetent for the NJ drafters to only mention ” a restaurant, hotel, doctor’s office, camp, or theater,’ which sure looks like a conscious attempt NOT to include retail stores. But the general rule in the US is that retail stores are included, and that as you say, the bridal shop owner was violating the law.
Steven is asserting a “sacred right” that has been eliminated by law.
Sen. Rand Paul doesn’t approve either.
Marriage hasn’t been defined the same across all time. The ‘current’ definition of marriage used most often by ‘one-man-one-woman’ arguments is actually only 100-200 years old and strictly Western. Marlene (I think- such a long list) also brought up the fact that the definition of SEX changes, too. The world started a long, long time ago and all the rules were different then. This country wasn’t there when the world started, and the rules here have also changed on many things. But Steven, you are going to have a hard, long, uphill battle to explain to me or anyone not already in agreement with you why ANYONE ELSE’S marriage- gay, straight, upside down or to a monkey- affects any other marriage. Jack is married. So am I. Unless someone is actively trying to break UP either of our marriages by inserting him/herself, a third party, there’s no impact. And frankly, if the 2 persons IN a marriage think having a 3rd party is ok (think in much of the rest of the world, where multiple wives are de rigeur, but oddly not multiple husbands- a totally different discussion), or even a 4th-13th, then why does it impact you? Or me?
Steven, I know you have a personal cause about predatory and abusive practices, specifically against children. However, two women or men who love each other and lead normal, non-harmful-to-anyone-else lives should be able to get married if they so choose. And it won’t take any skin off your nose. Nor mine or anyone else’s.
Becky: I understand where you’re coming from, but I can’t agree. Perversity is not normal. Therefore, it should not be legitimized in the same pattern as a formal family unit. But it goes beyond that… and children are integral into it. As I’ve often pointed
out (and as Jack himself has mentioned earlier) homosexuals to not normally breed. In fact, they disdain normal people by the term “breeders”. Therefore, they must recruit into their ranks to maintain their numbers and newfound political power. That’s where children come in. The seeds of perversion are laid early- as they must be, to overcome the natural human inclinations. Thus (and as with other cults, past and present) a way must be found to make new members early in their lives. Deviants- as with the notable polygamous cults, such as Jeffs’- need a faux family group to legitimize such recruitment. And the means of making children compliant in perversity- be it cults, homosexual “families”, Hollywood, etc.- is a story that defies description. This is how I see it and why I oppose such doings to the best of my ability.
What a bunch of crap. You just read anti-gay leaflets and memorize all the faulty, silly logic, don’t you. They can’t reproduce, so they need to recruit? Newsflash, I-word, no one recruits people into being gay. That is nonsense. People are gay as a matter of characteristic. No one decides to be interested in members of their own gender and there are absolutely no grounds upon which to call living according to that characteristic perverted. Some people in the population are same-sex attracted and it has always been that way. It comes natural to them to act on it just as it is for straights. It is also consensual and often results in long term commitment. Your earlier comments about the chaos that would result if we all had sex with no societal rules is bs as well. The rules are man-made because they reflect human behaviors and desires. We are emotionally complex creatures. We fall in love and experience jealousy. Therefore monogamy is a default way of life, but once upon a time some men in earlier cultures decided they were superior and got to collect wives like trophies and objects. Society moved away from the denigration of women and the world is better now because of it. Society is also moving toward letting homosexuals lead happy and fulfilled lives with partners they actually desire and love. If you think that’s perverted you need to look up “perversion” to get the correct definition or else see a counselor about your debillitating hatred for your fellow man that comes out in the form of vicious as well as false labelling. “Homosexuals recruit”, you say. Silliness. Homosexuals don’t care what other people’s orientation is and they have no reason to. You on the other hand are some kind of sad control freak.
Tell that to the former Mrs. Tiger Woods.