First openly gay leader of a U.S. military service branch

[txradioguy]

Indeed they are:

The federal government does take the position that sexual orientation is a protected class under Title VII.  Perhaps the USSC will find that isn't the case some day, but I doubt it.

That's nice...still doesn't change what the 1964 Civil Rights Act states.  Doesn't change the black letter law.

Just shows how willing this administration...Liberals and a few others are to thumb their nose at the law and further their agenda.

[DiogenesLamp]

You're the one who said in no uncertain terms that there wasn't a genetic origin to homosexuality.

Others don't:


"A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that homosexuality has a genetic basis, researchers say, though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important. "

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

Let me give you a piece of advice when researching issues relating to homosexuality.   You may or may not be aware of the fact that homosexuals have been trying to push this "gay gene"  theory for decades because they want people to believe their claim that they can't help themselves.   


If they can establish that there is a "gay" gene,   then that would demonstrate that their sexual orientation is hardwired and built into their bodies at the cellular level,  and therefore it is inherent,  like blackness.   


So what's been happening for a long time is homosexuals have been gravitating towards these sorts of medical research because they very much want to prove this.   In other words,   they've made up their mind what their theory is going to be,   and then they go "cherry picking"  whatever evidence is available to support it.   


This has happened in many different reports that I have seen relating to the search for a "gay"  gene,   and it is also true of this report you have cited.   One of the authors of this paper is "Dr. Richard C. Pillard",  who has the distinction of being the first  the first openly gay psychiatrist in the United States.


I haven't established that one of the other authors of the paper (J. Michael Bailey) is gay,   but he certainly seems to be kooky.   He doesn't just postulate a "gay"  gene,   he argues there is a "gay"  germ that activates the gene,   and some how people catch this "gay"  germ,  and it turns them "gay"  if they have the "gay"  gene.   

 
My point is,   you must look up the people who submit reports claiming there  is a "gay"  gene,   because usually you will find that some or all of the researchers are themselves homosexual,  and this is just them pushing their agenda.   

[MACVSOG68]

Hey look!  I can do that too!!!

Two Muslim truck drivers win $240,000 because they were fired for refusing to deliver beer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297078/2-Muslim-drivers-win-240K-judgment-discrimination-suit.html#ixzz49VVwj5Jh

Gee, I'm impressed.  Your point though was "In all those instances the Muslim won", which simply isn't the case.  As I said these cases will go back and forth through state and federal agencies and courts.  The Muslims don't win all the time; the Christians don't lose all the time. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Dont forget the University of Chicago study on lifetime partners...

Do you have a link? 

[cato potatoe]

I don't understand why anybody would want to consume a food product prepared by somebody who doesn't like them.  If you don't care for me or my kind, then by all means, put a sign on the door.  The marketplace will sort it out. 

Conservatives need to muster the courage to say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach.  Once you allow the government to decide with whom you can and cannot enter into contracts, you have lost the freedom of association, not to mention property rights.  Conservatives surrendered this argument when it counted, and therefore, they won't have a leg to stand on when governments create other protected classes. 

[MACVSOG68]

That's nice...still doesn't change what the 1964 Civil Rights Act states.  Doesn't change the black letter law.

Just shows how willing this administration...Liberals and a few others are to thumb their nose at the law and further their agenda.

Laws and even constitutional amendments have been interpreted more and more broadly as the times change.  Look at all the 14th Amendment cases that have accumulated since 1868.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Seeing as Obama now interprets federal law as protecting men who want to take a dump in the ladies room, I think we can safely disregard their interpretation of CR law.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Laws and even constitutional amendments have been interpreted more and more broadly as the times change.  Look at all the 14th Amendment cases that have accumulated since 1868.

Big difference between how the executive branch interprets law and how federal courts USSC interprets law.

[DiogenesLamp]

I knew about Burke and Smith, but did not know they were close personal friends.

You teach us much, DL

Why thank you.   One picks up bits and pieces the more one studies history.   

Two of the greatest thinkers of the 18th century, Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, it turns out, not only considered each other close friends, but the two men significantly influenced one another in all matters of thought and intellect.

I have long pointed out that their ideas are synergistic.   The two together produce more than the sum of their parts. 

[txradioguy]

the Christians don't lose all the time.

Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor...to that bakery owner...to anyone that wants to put a Nativity scene in front of City Hall...or for that matter on Church Property.

When's the last time you say a school calendar that annotated Christmas and Easter vacations for the kids?

School Choirs can't sing religious based "Holiday" songs and even something as innocent as "A Charlie Brown Christmas" has come under fire.

Military Chaplains are being told to perform gay weddings despite the religious beliefs of their church or face Courts Martial and dismissal from the Military.

Our own President bends over backwards to welcome Muslims to the White House and to wag his finger at all of us for being critical of Muslims while the bodies are still being cleared from the latest Daesh attack on civilians.

Yet he says nothing about the genocide of Christians and the destruction of Christian artifacts in the Middle East by the very same Daesh scum.

Christians in the 21st Century don't lose all of the time...you're right about that...they lose EVERY time.

[DiogenesLamp]

Caused by abnormal chemical mixup while during gestation

That's a theory,  and one that has not yet been thoroughly substantiated.   I believe i've read articles citing evidence that tends to disprove it.   


I still keep it on the back burner of my mind though.   One can never tell when the next bit of evidence to emerge will support or further discredit a theory,   so if you can juggle a bunch of them,   it's worthwhile to keep an array of theories in the back of your mind.   You never can tell which one might turn out to be correct. 

[txradioguy]

Laws and even constitutional amendments have been interpreted more and more broadly as the times change.  Look at all the 14th Amendment cases that have accumulated since 1868.

But it's the Liberals that seem to find and create laws and rights where none exist.

That's what is happening in this instance...and you seem to have no problem with that.

[Cowboyway]

The Secretary of the Army is a homosexual.  Homosexuals are welcome in the military.  That you can't deal with that is your problem.

Bible says two men ought not lay together.

[MACVSOG68]

Big difference between how the executive branch interprets law and how federal courts USSC interprets law.

Absolutely.  And big difference in how states and state courts interpret law.  And if the EEOC brings a suit against your business for discrimination, you have every right to fight it vigorously, all the way through the courts.  Many have.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Absolutely.  And big difference in how states and state courts interpret law.  And if the EEOC brings a suit against your business for discrimination, you have every right to fight it vigorously, all the way through the courts.  Many have.

Yeah, what we're saying that the Obama admin saying that such and such a group is a protected classes doesn't mean jack until it goes through the courts. And the letter of the law apparently only list sex, race, and age as protected classes. We all know that Obama will protect any group he can as long as it remains the cause celebre to do so. Doesn't make it so. Obama is not absolute dictator, yet.

[DiogenesLamp]

When a male and female places their engagement or wedding announcement in the paper they are announcing they are heterosexual. I could give a 1000 other examples where heterosexuals announce they are heterosexual.

Why can't gays do the same?
@CaliGirl

Because it serves no purpose.   There is no such thing as a "gay"  marriage.   

Are you familiar with etymology?   It's the study of the origins of words.   Let us start off with an easier word to grasp:   


"Matrimony".     It's a Latin derived word,   and those with some small knowledge of Latin might realize instantly that the word "Mater"   is one of it's roots.   

Well what do you suppose the word "Mater"  means in Latin?       

Well,   it's the opposite of "Pater",   a word from which we derive "Paternal",  or "Patriot".   


So what does this word "Mater"   mean,   and how do you apply it to two male homosexuals?   




The word "Marriage",   is more complex,   but it derives from the first recorded wedding at the city of MARI in Mesopotamia on a clay cuneiform tablet.     




It is comes from a ceremony of fertility,  meaning the production of children.   Again,  what does this word have to do with two homosexuals?   


Homosexuals cannot "marry",   and they can't "matrimony"  either,  because both words literally mean the production of children.   


This notion of applying the concept of "marriage"  or "matrimony"   to two homosexuals is just another aspect of the WAR AGAINST REALITY.   


Homosexual "marriage"  is no different than a "Trans-Genderism."      In other words, fake gender swapping to accommodate the delusions of mentally ill people. 




It's a War against  Reality through a War against the correct meaning of words. 

[MACVSOG68]

Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor...to that bakery owner...to anyone that wants to put a Nativity scene in front of City Hall...or for that matter on Church Property.

When's the last time you say a school calendar that annotated Christmas and Easter vacations for the kids?

School Choirs can't sing religious based "Holiday" songs and even something as innocent as "A Charlie Brown Christmas" has come under fire.

Military Chaplains are being told to perform gay weddings despite the religious beliefs of their church or face Courts Martial and dismissal from the Military.

Our own President bends over backwards to welcome Muslims to the White House and to wag his finger at all of us for being critical of Muslims while the bodies are still being cleared from the latest Daesh attack on civilians.

Yet he says nothing about the genocide of Christians and the destruction of Christian artifacts in the Middle East by the very same Daesh scum.

Christians in the 21st Century don't lose all of the time...you're right about that...they lose EVERY time.

We agree on Obama anyway.  I'm not aware of any chaplains being court-martialed for refusing to perform a gay marriage.  Do you have a link to that?  I think the Little Sisters case was sent back down to the lower courts to find a solution.  And you're saying a nativity scene cannot be placed on church property?  Do you have a link to that?

[DiogenesLamp]

It's what they're in business to do.

People have,  or ought to have,  discretion as to how they conduct their business.   Obviously it would be a bad idea for a Black Rope salesman to sell rope to the Klan.   


Christians have a *RIGHT*  to not participate in obscene anti-Christian ceremonies.    My own position,  informed by this thing called "natural law",  (which is the what the nation was founded upon)   is that anyone has a right to conduct their business however they chose,  and it is not the government's business to impose a state mandated morality on them.   


This is exactly the position held by Barry Goldwater during his opposition to the civil rights act of 1964.   While he condemned discrimination against black people,   he recognized that the government has no legitimate authority to force people to like each other.   He predicted it would lead to great abuse,   and he was absolutely correct on this point.   


In a country that recognizes freedom,   people have a right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to provide goods or services to others,  and it is none of the government's business to intervene should someone decide they do not wish to provide goods or services to groups or individuals with whom they do not wish to do business. 


The constitutionally guaranteed "freedom of association"  infers an equally valid "freedom of disassociation."   Compelled association is as objectionable as is forced disassociation.   


 

[MACVSOG68]

But it's the Liberals that seem to find and create laws and rights where none exist.

That's what is happening in this instance...and you seem to have no problem with that.

Please don't decide what I have a problem with.  I'm debating points, not preaching about my beliefs.  Thank you.

[DiogenesLamp]

They should have that right, yes.  But a lot of these anti-discrimination laws make that impossible.  My own politically incorrect solution to this would be to do away with the anti-discrimination laws entirely but require businesses to clearly identify who they will not serve.  Bakeries and florists could post "We do not serve homosexuals" and then let the market sort things out.  Those who choose to patronize them regardless of their policy will do so.  Those who decide not to patronize them because of their policy will do so.  There will be no surprises, no embarrassments, no need for lawsuits.  As for the business, if they don't specify then they have to serve whoever walks in the door.  It could be the same for race, religion, nationality, whatever.

This is a more rational approach to the problem.   It's not within the government's mandate to force people to adopt "government approved"  morality.   


I object to the requirement to post a sign.   People do not have to justify their position,   nor should they be required to articulate it.   They may do so if they wish,   but again,   no one should be able to compel them to do so. 


 The signs that you propose would be lightning rods for activists to cause them troubles. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I would hardly consider that the "good old days" any more than I would consider what's going on with gay marriage and bakers the "good new days". 

The problem with the situation is that you cannot guarantee constitutional rights for one group without violating what another group sees as their constitutional rights.  Gay couples have anti-discrimination laws on their side that say they can't be discriminated against.  Fundamentalists have religious freedom on their side saying that if they can't discriminate then they can't practice their religion as they see fit. 

Let us suppose you have a gun store that sells guns to customers who want to go target shooting or perhaps defend themselves from assault. 


You happen to agree with this usage of your product,  and have no objections to selling to such people.   

Then along comes some thug "gangbangers"   who have more or less informed you that they plan to use your product for "drive by shootings"   or "revenge killings"   or some other unsavory usage,  of which you morally disapprove.   


Should it not be your decision to run your life in accordance with your own moral preferences?   

If you find the projected usage of your product morally offensive to yourself,   why should you be required to participate in it?   


Of course the Feds will force you to sell guns to "gangbangers",  and if you refuse to do so you can be prosecuted by their "civil rights"  division.   


It is the very notion that the Feds,  or the State,  or the Municipality have any right to tell you how to run your business that is the base fallacy at work here.   They do not,   and they should not be permitted to tell people who to run their businesses.   


Let those people who wish to support vile usages of ordinary products do so,  and let those who do not wish to sell products for vile usages do as they wish too. 

 

[DiogenesLamp]

Not to nit pick, but states do not have rights, only powers.  And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Court's findings relating to the Constitution do transcend those powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment.  Whether we like it or not, the 14th Amendment is the brass ring for those who feel they've been discriminated against.  And of course, the states are bound to comply with all of the amendments to the Constitution.

No.   "Natural Law"  trumps man made law.   Even the courts recognize this as true,   because they are constantly striking down man made laws in deference to the "natural rights"   they claim queer people have.   


They understand the concept of inherent rights and natural law,   they just keep applying it absolutely bassackwards.   

No,  the constitution is not supreme.   I know they say it is,   but the facts speak otherwise.   


The Declaration of Independence is founded on Natural Law,  and it was our original governing document.   The Articles of Confederation became our second,  and finally when the US Constitution was written in 1787,  it became our third.   


But never forget,  the Declaration,   founded upon "the laws of nature and of nature's God",   overthrew a thousand years of absolutely supreme and established English law,   and you cannot tell me the Constitution has more legitimacy than did English law at the time we overthrew it by the application of natural law. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I wasn't making an argument, just asking a question. And I don't believe that USSC declared gays a "protected class" at all, just said that their due process rights were infringed in the case of barring them from being married.

We all know how to read between the lines.   The courts haven't come out and said it,   but we all know that is exactly what they are doing.   

They are becoming a protected class because the courts are leapfrogging over what is normal (and what has been normal for thousands of years)  to give them what they want.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, like it or not, sex including sexual preference is a protected class under the CRA of 1964. 

It has been creatively interpreted that way in the subsequent years.   I'm pretty sure that in 1964,  they were still locking homosexuals in asylums for being "non compos mentis."   To assert that they intended to allow homosexuals to sue for discrimination through legislation written in  1964 is a laughable,  and is a revisionist sort of claim. 

Everything isn't treated the same depending whether it's a housing, employment or public accommodation issue.  Anytime a discrimination complaint is filed with the court, the defendant is given the opportunity to show that the alleged discrimination didn't take place, or if it did, what the legitimate compelling reason is for the discrimination.  Interestingly, religion is a suspect classification, giving it the highest level of protection against discrimination.  But in most cases, especially non-religious businesses or government agencies, religion cannot "trump" other suspect or quasi-suspect groups in a discrimination show-down.

It can't now,   because the judiciary is ignoring the clearly articulated and known historical protections for religion in lieu of the "penumbra like emanations"  they pretend to see in the "spirit" of the law. 


They conjure up these protections for homosexuals from the same place they get their judicial theory for Abortion;   Made up nonsense through which everyone can see,   but that they can enforce because they have slithered their way into positions of power.   

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't understand why anybody would want to consume a food product prepared by somebody who doesn't like them.  If you don't care for me or my kind, then by all means, put a sign on the door.  The marketplace will sort it out. 

This isn't about cake.   This is about forcing people to "bow"   to the power of "Big Anus."   


They do not give a crap about the quality of the cake.   The only thing they want is to force their will on people who do not approve of their behavior.     The "cake"   is just a club,   or a "vehicle"  to accomplish their objective,  which is to legally and morally stigmatize people who do not support homosexuality.   


They wish to cast an ominous feeling of threat on others who do not wish to do business with homosexuals.   They are pushing these things to intimidate,  and for no other reason.   


In fact,   they often seek out specifically those people who do not wish to be involved in homosexual "marriages",   and deliberately eschew doing business with other people who have made it clear that they would be happy to conduct business with them.   


Again,  this is not about cake.   It is about whether people will be forced to bow to the power of "Big Anus."   

Conservatives need to muster the courage to say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach.  Once you allow the government to decide with whom you can and cannot enter into contracts, you have lost the freedom of association, not to mention property rights.  Conservatives surrendered this argument when it counted, and therefore, they won't have a leg to stand on when governments create other protected classes.

Barry Goldwater already did that.   He did it back in 1964,  and pretty much every abuse he predicted has come to pass.   


The Civil rights act of 1964 was wrong headed,  and has succeeded in making a bigger mess of things in the long term.