The Chick Fil A Flap

[sparky]

Let me start by saying that I am well aware that the level of intelligent and reasoned discourse on The Ledge has plummeted in the last 3 years to about 5th grade reading comprehension. The majority of educated and thoughtful people flew the coop or were bant years ago. Regardless, I will bring up this topic.

What do you think about the brou haha over the owner of Chick Fil A saying he is proudly against gay marriage? He is unapologetic about donating many millions of dollars to groups like Focus on The Family, who fund all the anti gay marriage amendments across the country.

Here are my thoughts. In no particular order.

I heard this company did such things years ago. I vowed to never give them a cent. They opened a branch about a block from the border of West Hollywood last year. FYI Weho is the Gay Capital here in LA. I went there once to see what the fuss was all about.

The waffle fries were soft. The bun was squishy and flat. The chicken was neither crispy spicy nor was it firm. Overall, it was a letdown. It goes without saying that we gays like our buns firm, and our meat spicy and standing at attention. The food was lame. I wasn't impressed. And I was open to being impressed. If the buns are firm and the meat is top notch, I am there. No go at this place.

I didn't spend a dime of my own money. I turned the meal in on my show. But I do spend my own money with thought. I am not going to spend my cash at a place that actively works to attack homos like myself. This was simply an experiment and it was about 6 bucks.

Now that the owner has come out with his statement, there seems to be a line drawn in the sand. And it has had some odd consequences. '

Tomorrow, on my time, is Chick Fil A appreciation day. Which is evidently the day everyone who opposes gay marriage should spend money there. For which, Sarah Palin and her strangely gay looking (tight plaid pearl button shirt) husband, tweeted a pic of them holding a sack of the food with a thumbs up sign. Sarah had the thumbs up. Gay looking beefcake dude merely looked at the camera grinning.

In turn, government officials from Boston and Chicago said the company was not welcome in their town. The Jim Henson company bailed on a Muppet toy tie in. In retaliation, CFA said the Muppet toys had "safety issues."

Henson has every right to sever ties. But clearly they didn't do due diligence. It is no secret what this company thinks and where they put their money.

But I think the city people are out of bounds. They can't legally deny CFA the right to do business in their cities. I think that is illegal and unethical. Could a bible belt city like Atlanta deny Starbucks a franchise because they are pro gay marriage?

No. Imagine the scandal.

Here is what I cannot understand, and it makes all of the anti gay marriage groups irrelevant: where is the support for straight marriages? Take those by now hundreds of millions of dollars donated to deny the right of gay people to marry. Take that money and open free marriage counseling centers all over the country. Offer pre- marital counseling on conflict resolution, financial planning, and sexual communication. That would eliminate half the divorces right there. And also offer the same services to married people in trouble. THAT is supporting and protecting marriage. Preventing the expansion of marriage rights hasn't saved a single marriage of any str8 people. Honestly. Who ever said, "I got divorced because Ellen and that Ally McBeal chick got married"?

Please.

These people need to put their money where their mouth hole is.

I know that divorce damages people - adults and kids both. If these organizations are so committed to the institution of marriage, where is their support of people getting married and those who are struggling to stay married? There is none. It is all about hating the gays. All about their relentless fascination and obsession with men having sex with each other. Trust me. They never mention lesbians in any meaningful way. The focus is all on "sodomy" and a barrage of commentary on butt sex. And when someone mentions sodomy between heterosexuals there is silence. Is there a hetero couple on earth who hasn't had oral or anal sex? The hypocrisy is unreal yet utterly predictable.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

[mylittledemon]

I am surprised at the level of attention this garnered in the media. I mean, asking the head of a Christian company what he thinks about the matter, and then being outraged at his answer seems a little bit off to me.

I think Dan Carthy (sp?) has to right to think, say, and do what he wants on the subject. It's a free country. On the flipside, I think everyone who disagrees with Carthy has the right to stop eating their delicious chik'un sandwiches and crispy mouth-watering waffle fries, and buy their fast food from some other (possibly) sub-par restaurant that may or may not support other agendas which may or may not be any more beneficial to the world.

Also I was bothered by the response from The Muppets. Now look, I friggin love the Muppets okay. I grew up with them. I felt that Kermit and company should've been backing the right to free-speech, and not getting behind an issue (gay marriage or otherwise).

I also admit I don't know the gory details of the whole saga being over here on the other side of the world where I don't have access to Chik Fil A anymore... and I don't know what Carthy does with his company's money. If all he did was come out and said he disagreed with gay-marriage? Fine. No problem there. If at the same time he's donating and/or supporting groups that are harmful or hateful to anyone for any reason... then that I'm not cool with.

[WildHearted]

I'm surprised that anyone was surprised. The fact that they've donated to groups that are against gay marriage has been known for a while. I mean, come on, the guy's an old devout southern baptist who's restaurant is closed on Sundays. Obviously not all Christian's are against gay marriage (me being one of them) but I don't think what he said should be a shocker... they asked him a question, and he answered honestly. I don't agree with his opinion but that doesn't negate his right to HAVE an opinion.

And if anyone chooses to stop eating at Chick-fil-a in light of that statement, then, well, that's their choice too and I'm not going to lose sleep about it. If they feel strongly about it then they should do what they see fit. But I personally like their chicken and I honestly will probably keep eating there as I have my entire life.

I don't think their entire purpose as a restaurant is to take down gay marriage... they do a lot of good things with their money, too. They provide a lot of scholarships and hold events for a bunch of other charities as well. So while they may be misguided (to many) in one particular area I don't think that they are an evil company or anything. They just support what they believe in, and isn't that what we all do?

Also, as a side note, maybe it's just the location of the Chick-fil-a.. all of the ones in the South that I've ever been too are delicious. In high school, many of my friends worked for Chick-fil-a so I ate there a lot. The only time it's ever been less-than-desirable was when it was like the 'express' version at a college where the chicken sat there pre-made for hours. Their regular chicken is more sweet than spicy, that's what's great about it.

[CADreaming]

-They offer a spicy chicken sandwich now. ;)

-CFA acknowledged the Henson company's decision the day after CFA recalled the toys for safety reasons.

-CFA does support a marriage retreat (along with other youth centered programs).

-I think it's a shame anyone is attacked for their beliefs. This is America. We all have a right to express our opinions and stand up for them, to build companies, to give money to organizations of our choice, and most importantly to VOTE for the people we feel will make every effort to represent us fairly in the arena that makes the laws. Gay marriage laws will not be passed on whether or not people buy a chicken sandwich.

[wondergirl9847]

Why the heck was he even asked the question? What do I care what the CEO of CFA thinks about gay marriage or straight marriage or what his fave Bible verse is?

Just give me some tasty food. That's all I care about.

I'm sure that most companies in America have something they believe in, that I don't. I remember when I was a kid and there were rumours going around that Procter & Gamble were giving money to the Church of Satan. People in my school/church were told not to buy products from that company. Did my mom listen? Nope. It's silliness.

I am so sick and tired of the politics involved with just about EVERYTHING these days. :(

[HejiraNYC]

Let me start by saying that I am well aware that the level of intelligent and reasoned discourse on The Ledge has plummeted in the last 3 years to about 5th grade reading comprehension. The majority of educated and thoughtful people flew the coop or were bant years ago. Regardless, I will bring up this topic.



Wow. Really? Okay... I suppose it's fine for you to have an opinion about people on the Ledge. But for you to try to initiate a dialogue over a current topic by first insulting everyone's intelligence and coming across as someone better/smarter/wiser than everyone else is pretty pathetic. Fail.


I don't think their entire purpose as a restaurant is to take down gay marriage... they do a lot of good things with their money, too. They provide a lot of scholarships and hold events for a bunch of other charities as well. So while they may be misguided (to many) in one particular area I don't think that they are an evil company or anything. They just support what they believe in, and isn't that what we all do?

Would it make any difference then if Chik Fil-A donated millions of dollars to the Ku Klux Klan? I mean, it's a free country and that is their right, right? That wouldn't make it an evil company, right? They would just be supporting what they believe in.

Yes, that is a slightly extreme comparison, but the principle is the same- the company actively supports organizations that seek to harm LGBT by denying them equal civil/financial rights and by practicing "reparative therapy," which has been completely discredited by the psychiatric community, and has been shown to inflict extreme psychological harm (often resulting in suicide). The Southern Poverty Law Institute has dubbed these organizations, e.g., Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. as hate groups. I think the KKK technically qualifies as a hate group as well. If the term "gay marriage" was substituted with the term "people of color" in Dan Cathy's interview, would that affect your stance on whether or not to continue to patronize Chik-Fil-A? And if the answer is yes, why do you think supporting discrimination/animus against GLBT is any different than supporting discrimination/animus against racial minorities?

Much has been said about this controversy and I think it's pretty straightforward.

1. Chik-Fil-A and/or Dan Cathy are entitled to their opinions and are entitled to exercise free speech.
2. The American consumer has a right to exercise his/her free speech by either condoning or boycotting businesses that are/are not in alignment with their values.
3. As long as Chik-Fil-A is observing all local ordinances regarding the opening of franchises, they should be allowed to conduct business wherever they choose.
4. Chik-Fil-A has the right to rise or fall as a result of their chosen position on a controversial social issue.

Personally, regardless of their corporate philosophy, I would never eat at a Chik-Fil-A because I don't meat. And even if I did eat meat, I would balk at the notion of eating so many deep-fried, cholesterol-laden, sodium-laden calories that lack any semblance of nutrition. To sum it up- it's disgusting and unhealthy. Everyone else is free to do what they want with their bodies, and they are free to patronize businesses that are consistent with their core values. However, I also strongly believe that when you spend one penny at organizations that actively support hate groups, you are implicitly saying that it is okay. We are blessed to have choices in this country and Chik-Fil-A is just one of a gazillion other places where hungry Americans can get a quick bite to eat. Why support the establishments that support/condone hatred at the expense of truly charitable "Christian" causes such as helping the poor, downtrodden and underprivileged? If you truly disagree with their stance on the issue of civil rights for GLBT, is it that much of a hardship to choose to voice your disagreement by spending your money elsewhere? Choosing to knowingly support hate groups with your money is simply bad karma.

[HejiraNYC]

-I think it's a shame anyone is attacked for their beliefs. This is America. We all have a right to express our opinions and stand up for them, to build companies, to give money to organizations of our choice, and most importantly to VOTE for the people we feel will make every effort to represent us fairly in the arena that makes the laws. Gay marriage laws will not be passed on whether or not people buy a chicken sandwich.

For one thing, there is no such thing as a "gay marriage law." The issue is about nullifying or amending legislation that has been enacted or worded to specifically deny GLBT equal protection under the constitution and, in California specifically, about the legality of withdrawing civil rights that have already been granted without serving a legitimate public interest.

In a nutshell, money matters. Do you suppose South Africa would have eliminated apartheid if the world simply looked the other way and conducted business as usual with them? Do you suppose North Korea wouldn't have already erased South Korea off of the map if it wasn't for the considerable financial assistance they receive? As the old saying goes: money talks, bull***t walks. And there is no more powerful way to voice ones objections over a social injustice.

One chicken sandwich will not make any difference. But one million? Ten million? That sends a powerful message to other businesses as well as to our political leaders.

Why the heck was he even asked the question? What do I care what the CEO of CFA thinks about gay marriage or straight marriage or what his fave Bible verse is?

Just give me some tasty food. That's all I care about.

The issue here is not that the president of CFA has an opinion. The issue is that they knowingly advocated for and made considerable financial contributions to hate groups who are not only working to fight against marriage equality, but also inflicting psychological torture via "reparative therapy" on GLBT youth. Big difference. In essence, a percentage of the money one spends at CFA goes directly into the coffers of these hate groups. Nice.


I'm sure that most companies in America have something they believe in, that I don't. I remember when I was a kid and there were rumours going around that Procter & Gamble were giving money to the Church of Satan. People in my school/church were told not to buy products from that company. Did my mom listen? Nope. It's silliness.

That's not a valid comparison. The P&G "666" rumor was just... rumor and speculation on a par with spinning vinyl albums backwards to hear satanic messages. In the case of CFA, the dots are connected and the president of CFA has gone on record about the corporate stance on the issue. Big difference.

[QueenStevie]

I've never eaten anything from Chick-fil-A, but I WILL later today because I want to show support for "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day", which was created in reaction to the boycott of Chick-fil-A by pro-gay marriage activists.

[olive]

it's not what I would consider Food.

[louielouie2000]

Just give me some tasty food. That's all I care about.

This reminds me of something. My friend's sister posted a picture on Facebook of a very busy Chick Fil-A the other day, and the caption read "Wow, people are really showing their support for Chick Fil-A!"

Has anyone ever seen a Chick Fil-A that's not rampantly busy at lunchtime... ever? Americans just want their fatty fried fast food, period. They don't give a damn about the denial of equality or civil liberties in this country unless it directly involves them.

"The opposite of good is not evil, the opposite of good is indifference."

And to those who will invariably start rolling out Bible verses, remember that our constitution states our congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Those who claim to be literalist Christians when it comes to marriage are not being honest with themselves, either. How many women have they stoned to death for premarital sex lately? How many women have married their husband's brothers following their husband's deaths? How many are in polygamous marriages, because that's ok too? Let's not forget it's a sin to mix wool & cotton, or to touch the skin of a dead pig. I could go on and on... the point being this: Modern day Christians pick & chose what they believe, what they feel are core tennants of their religion, and the extent to which they follow these tennants.

[KarmaContestant]

I don't have much to say on the subject, since Hejira was so eloquent.

I've never in my life eaten at Chick-Fil-A. I never will, regardless of the mythology the owner chooses to subscribe to.

Someday, probably not too far from today, I'll be getting married. Mr. Cathy's business however, will forever be tarnished.

[wondergirl9847]

I cannot tell you where to spend your cash after I've given it to you. That's YOUR business. You are free to give to whatever cause or charity you want...that's YOUR choice.

If you don't want to eat at CFA, don't. If you do, go right ahead...it's a free country, last I checked. Dan Cathy has the right to believe whatever he wants and people have a right not to eat at any of his restaurants. :)

I personally don't understand why keeping gay people from getting married is such a huge issue anyway, but that's just my belief and opinion. If they want to marry, let 'em. As long as a human isn't personally hurting another, let people be! Sheebus. Let go of the reins and quit trying to control everyone.

I hate politics.

[HomerMcvie]

It's strange here. I live in the most liberal city in my state, and CFA supporters are lined outside our mall(our only CFA is in the food court of our mall). People are posting pics of them on FB. I'm honestly shocked, as liberal as my town is, that that many people would choose to show their bigotry.

[louielouie2000]

I cannot tell you where to spend your cash after I've given it to you. That's YOUR business. You are free to give to whatever cause or charity you want...that's YOUR choice.

If you don't want to eat at CFA, don't. If you do, go right ahead...it's a free country, last I checked. Dan Cathy has the right to believe whatever he wants and people have a right not to eat at any of his restaurants. :)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would never, ever dispute CFA's right to free speech, even if it's bigoted. I'd fight for it, even.


I personally don't understand why keeping gay people from getting married is such a huge issue anyway, but that's just my belief and opinion. If they want to marry, let 'em. As long as a human isn't personally hurting another, let people be! Sheebus. Let go of the reins and quit trying to control everyone.

I hate politics.

Here's the thing... gays don't want white chapel marriages. We simply want equal protection under the law.

I can give you a firsthand example. My partner & I have been together 6 years (longer than any of our hetero friends our age who are in fact married). We own a house in North Carolina that we rent out, rent an apartment here in Texas, and own a car, a motorcycle, and a scooter together. Since we don't live in a state that recognizes civil unions, can you imagine how complex our taxes & insurance policies are? Do you know much more money we have to spend on these things since our relationship isn't recognized under the law? And that if either of us were to pass away, we would not be eligible for the other's survivor benefits?

Yes, the whole thing about a fast food chain making a stance on a divisive social issue is completely stupid. But the said fast food chain wields a tremendous amount of money & political influence through it's charitable and lobbying contributions. Grass roots campaigns and causes these days are pretty much underwritten by corporate interests. More than anything, this whole CFA flap should be a milestone on how consumers desperately need to become more aware of where their dollars end up going.

[skcin]

We don't have any locations here locally. But I would simply choose not to buy their product - I don't get why people are surprised or outraged either. :shrug:

The Boy Scouts is a similar situation, IMO. Do I think it sucks that they have banned openly gay scout leaders? Yes. But they are a private company & they can do what they want. I'll just take my kid somewhere else.

[estranged4life]

But I would simply choose not to buy their product - I don't get why people are surprised or outraged either. :shrug:

with you about not knowing why people are surprised and outraged.

[sparky]

Wow. Really? Okay... I suppose it's fine for you to have an opinion about people on the Ledge. But for you to try to initiate a dialogue over a current topic by first insulting everyone's intelligence and coming across as someone better/smarter/wiser than everyone else is pretty pathetic. Fail.

Yes. Really. I'm not better/smarter/wiser than anyone else. There just aren't many intelligent and thoughtful exchanges that happen on the Ledge anymore. I lament that fact. There are certainly smart people who still read and post here. This thread shows that. I even got Paula out the woodwork and inspired you to share a number of facts about the issue. So I call it a success.

I find the melee over this whole thing fascinating. And oddly, the MSM is not really reporting on the exact kinds of destruction that are the result of many of the groups this money goes to support. I wonder why?

The twist in this is the debate over trying to shut him up. I don't think he should be shut up. The more these groups are talked about, the more facts that are revealed, the more the general public is disgusted by them. Much of what they do is shrouded by the "protect marriage" and "wholesome" tags they put on themselves. When the exact nature of their activities is in the blinding light of day, it horrifies people.

It is a huge misfire for anyone to have said they want to ban the restaurants. You can't just shut people up because you don't agree with them. What you can do is expose exactly what the money is doing. Hopefully, this drama will bring more of that to light.

[sparky]

-CFA acknowledged the Henson company's decision the day after CFA recalled the toys for safety reasons.

I have heard some things that counter the timing and imply that there was dialogue behind the scenes about pulling the toys earlier. Dunno how reliable it is.

-CFA does support a marriage retreat (along with other youth centered programs).

I had read about that and think it is a good thing. I doubt I'd agree with some of the things they teach and talk about, but that is actual support of marriages and kids and that is going in the right direction.

I think it's a shame anyone is attacked for their beliefs. This is America. We all have a right to express our opinions and stand up for them, to build companies, to give money to organizations of our choice, and most importantly to VOTE for the people we feel will make every effort to represent us fairly in the arena that makes the laws.

People shouldn't be attacked for their beliefs. However, they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. Hejira pointed out many dangerous and destructive things that are the result of the actions of the groups CFA's money goes to support. That is what needs to be talked about.

Gay marriage laws will not be passed on whether or not people buy a chicken sandwich.

I agree. It is interesting that so much is turning on this particular subject and how much information is being brought out by it. I like seeing that.

It looks to me to be the last gasp of a certain mindset on the cusp of becoming a minority. They are going down swinging and it is fun to watch. What I am looking forward to is the time when the war is won, and what the discourse is going to be then. Canada has gay marriage. So do many other countries. I wonder what horror stories that has created? None that I've heard of. During this whole debate I never see anyone trotting out statistics and tales of countries falling into ruin because of homos getting married. It is kind of like the DADT repeal. There isn't so much as a whimper. What will the next battlefield be when gay marriage is legal and it turns out to have been nothing to be worried about? I can't wait to see what happens.

[olive]

why would anyone want to put that ( or any fast food) in to their bodies?

[GypsySorcerer]

It looks to me to be the last gasp of a certain mindset on the cusp of becoming a minority. They are going down swinging and it is fun to watch.

I tend to agree with this. They have their own movies, music, etc, and now they'll have their own fast food joint.

Mr. Cathy is entitled to his beliefs/opinions, as are those who choose to eat at CFA. I do find it interesting that some are arguing this is a First Amendment issue, when it's really not. Clearly, it's about the $$$ being pumped into hate organizations by CFA. And before someone says "they're not hate organizations," denying people their rights is a form of hate to some of us.

[Christopher]

It's strange here. I live in the most liberal city in my state, and CFA supporters are lined outside our mall(our only CFA is in the food court of our mall). People are posting pics of them on FB. I'm honestly shocked, as liberal as my town is, that that many people would choose to show their bigotry.

Or it could just be they are standing in a line for free speech...and/or bigotry.;)

I support & believe in free speech and therefore have no problem with Chick-fil-la's right to take a stand and express their beliefs as a company. But on a macro level what is much more disconcerting to me is freedom of speech being manipulated and co-opted - whoever has the biggest bank accounts also has the biggest megaphone's. And let's face it, there are a lot of citizens of the world who still chose to live their lives in a bubble and believe that they are not affected, or turn a blind eye, to this seemingly big chess game for the soul of the country, if not the world, as we stand by and witness an intensely growing zealousness and divisiveness that Corporations and their super rich allies are perpetrating.

So unlike, super PACs, which thus far (because of a dominant Republican congress) are not required to be transparent and disclose names of donors who are dumping unlimited amounts of money (because of a Supreme Courts decision to lift long standing donor limits in 2010) which help fill the coffers & flood the media with paid free speech to elect candidates whom further their greedy agenda's, I appreciate that a company like Chick-fil-la (which over the last 20 yrs. has grown steadily in franchise visibility and power) openly admits its philosophy and activism towards limiting the civil rights of a portion of their potential customer base (LGBT community AND Woman's rights, etc.). Because armed with that disclosed information I and the public gets a chance to support or boycott that establishment and their beliefs. I wish more companies were that expressive in the press regarding their social and political philosophies and causes they support.

[QueenStevie]

Because armed with that disclosed information I and the public gets a chance to support or boycott that establishment and their beliefs. I wish more companies were that expressive in the press regarding their social and political philosophies and causes they support.

Target and Amazon are two companies that have come out as pro-gay marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/target-and-amazon-are-the-opposites-of-chick-fil-a-on-gay-marriage I'm glad that those companies have come out as pro-gay marriage, because now I know better than to give them my business!

[olive]

Target and Amazon are two companies that have come out as pro-gay marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/target-and-amazon-are-the-opposites-of-chick-fil-a-on-gay-marriage I'm glad that those companies have come out as pro-gay marriage, because now I know better than to give them my business!


at this rate the only places that are going to be left for you and one million moms to shop at will be the dollar store and dress barn

[jannieC]

Target and Amazon are two companies that have come out as pro-gay marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/target-and-amazon-are-the-opposites-of-chick-fil-a-on-gay-marriage I'm glad that those companies have come out as pro-gay marriage, because now I know better than to give them my business!

Say what? :confused:

The whole CFA thing is ridiculous. I haven't been following it closely (and unfortunately have only had time to skim over most of the comments here) but why was the owner/CEO(?) even asked about this to begin with? I don't eat chicken, so I can't comment on the quality of the food, but I can say that I've always been somewhat intrigued with the idea they are closed on Sundays. I would think Sunday would be a profitable fast food day; these people must be <i>serious</i> to lose that kind of revenue in order to make a statement like that.

[TwistedGypsy]

Well being from the south I've known Chick-Fil-A since pretty much birth. The food is fine the service is better and the bathrooms are really nice. They have mouthwash in some for goodness sake. But I really kind of indifferent, cause like someone mentioned about Target and other companies coming out as pro-gay, I shop at Target all the time. No telling what other companies stand for. The way I see the world, if you are decent human being that doesn't intentionally cause harm to others I'm fine with you, gay or straight.
I wasn't too fond of Chick-Fil-A today though, because I wait tables and a CFA is right next door and I didn't find out why we were so friggin slow till I got home and saw the news. So thanks alot CFA supporters you cost me some dough today!:distress:

[Macfanforever]

I never heard of a Chick-Fil-A joint until this flap started.

[jbrownsjr]

Wow. Really? Okay... I suppose it's fine for you to have an opinion about people on the Ledge. But for you to try to initiate a dialogue over a current topic by first insulting everyone's intelligence and coming across as someone better/smarter/wiser than everyone else is pretty pathetic. Fail.



Would it make any difference then if Chik Fil-A donated millions of dollars to the Ku Klux Klan? I mean, it's a free country and that is their right, right? That wouldn't make it an evil company, right? They would just be supporting what they believe in.

Yes, that is a slightly extreme comparison, but the principle is the same- the company actively supports organizations that seek to harm LGBT by denying them equal civil/financial rights and by practicing "reparative therapy," which has been completely discredited by the psychiatric community, and has been shown to inflict extreme psychological harm (often resulting in suicide). The Southern Poverty Law Institute has dubbed these organizations, e.g., Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. as hate groups. I think the KKK technically qualifies as a hate group as well. If the term "gay marriage" was substituted with the term "people of color" in Dan Cathy's interview, would that affect your stance on whether or not to continue to patronize Chik-Fil-A? And if the answer is yes, why do you think supporting discrimination/animus against GLBT is any different than supporting discrimination/animus against racial minorities?

Much has been said about this controversy and I think it's pretty straightforward.

1. Chik-Fil-A and/or Dan Cathy are entitled to their opinions and are entitled to exercise free speech.
2. The American consumer has a right to exercise his/her free speech by either condoning or boycotting businesses that are/are not in alignment with their values.
3. As long as Chik-Fil-A is observing all local ordinances regarding the opening of franchises, they should be allowed to conduct business wherever they choose.
4. Chik-Fil-A has the right to rise or fall as a result of their chosen position on a controversial social issue.

Personally, regardless of their corporate philosophy, I would never eat at a Chik-Fil-A because I don't meat. And even if I did eat meat, I would balk at the notion of eating so many deep-fried, cholesterol-laden, sodium-laden calories that lack any semblance of nutrition. To sum it up- it's disgusting and unhealthy. Everyone else is free to do what they want with their bodies, and they are free to patronize businesses that are consistent with their core values. However, I also strongly believe that when you spend one penny at organizations that actively support hate groups, you are implicitly saying that it is okay. We are blessed to have choices in this country and Chik-Fil-A is just one of a gazillion other places where hungry Americans can get a quick bite to eat. Why support the establishments that support/condone hatred at the expense of truly charitable "Christian" causes such as helping the poor, downtrodden and underprivileged? If you truly disagree with their stance on the issue of civil rights for GLBT, is it that much of a hardship to choose to voice your disagreement by spending your money elsewhere? Choosing to knowingly support hate groups with your money is simply bad karma.

As a man, "who happens to be gay", I'm very proud to read this post (5th grade grammar notwithstanding) :lol: and; I am in awe of your lucid and articulate views. These concepts are very close to my thoughts on the subject. Only an individual can decide what they choose to believe and support. It's really that simple. Follow your conscious folks.

[TrueFaith77]

The KKK is a vigilante organization, which means it is a criminal enterprise. So there is a difference.

I never heard of a Chick-Fil-A joint until this flap started.

I just found out it's pronounced "Chick-Fillet" instead of "Chick-Fillah" which is how I always read it.

[jannieC]

The KKK is a vigilante organization, which means it is a criminal enterprise. So there is a difference.



I just found out it's pronounced "Chick-Fillet" instead of "Chick-Fillah" which is how I always read it.

No, down South it's pronounced "fi-lay." I just read on FB Chick-fellatio. :lol:

[sodascouts]

It's no secret that the owner of Chick-fil-A is a Serious Business Southern Baptist. The guy expressed his opinion in an interview in a Christian magazine. It's not like he set fire to a gay couple's house or lynched a gay man ala the KKK, refused to serve gay people, refused to hire them... he just expressed his opinion. You don't have to like it, but it's his right.

I find it highly disturbing that some governmental officials apparently feel free to bar people from doing business based on their perfectly legal private opinions and donations. You can use the rhetoric of "hate group" to apply to "Focus on the Family" if you choose, but it's a legal organization. Last time I checked, people were free to give their money to legal organizations without fear of reprisal from the government.

If you don't want to go there, fine. However, denying this man the right to do business because of a socio-political belief he holds - a belief which is perfectly legal and indeed aligns with the law as it currently stands in most of the country - is wrong in every way.

Think of it this way. What if you have an ultra-conservative mayor in a very conservative town who proclaims that he's going to block Home Depot from opening a franchise due to the fact that its owner donates to pro-gay marriage groups? Would that be OK?

Let's do a "plug in the manipulative rhetoric," tweaking the Boston mayor's phrasing to show what it would be like on the other side. "You can't have a business in the city of [UltraConservativeTown] that discriminates against a [traditional family-friendly] population. We're a [traditional] city, we're a city that's at the forefront of [support for the traditional family]... If [Home Depot] needs licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they [change] their [stance]." How about the Chicago mayor? "[Home Depot] values are not [UltraConservativeTown] values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents."

Would anyone here be cool with that?

When this whole "the Southern Baptist owner of Chick-fil-A opposes gay marriage - GASP - SHOCK" started, I shrugged it off. Of course he does. So what? Those who don't want to support his establishment don't have to.

It's only when these mayors started coming out and saying they're going to block him from doing business that I took note. This precedent cannot be established. If it is, where does it stop? Are mayors going to go through each business owner's tax records to ensure that he only gives his money to "acceptable" groups (which begs the question, "acceptable" to whom)? And those who don't hold the "acceptable" views or donate their money to "acceptable" groups have to pack up and leave town? Since when is this OK in America?

[BombaySapphire3]

I never heard of a Chick-Fil-A joint until this flap started.

Neither had I..but no need for me to have to worry about boycotting them .The food seems like it would be vile.

[Brad]

It's no secret that the owner of Chick-fil-A is a Serious Business Southern Baptist. The guy expressed his opinion in an interview in a Christian magazine. It's not like he set fire to a gay couple's house or lynched a gay man ala the KKK, refused to serve gay people, refused to hire them... he just expressed his opinion. You don't have to like it, but it's his right.

I find it highly disturbing that some governmental officials apparently feel free to bar people from doing business based on their perfectly legal private opinions and donations. You can use the rhetoric of "hate group" to apply to "Focus on the Family" if you choose, but it's a legal organization. Last time I checked, people were free to give their money to legal organizations without fear of reprisal from the government.

If you don't want to go there, fine. However, denying this man the right to do business because of a socio-political belief he holds - a belief which is perfectly legal and indeed aligns with the law as it currently stands in most of the country - is wrong in every way.

Think of it this way. What if you have an ultra-conservative mayor in a very conservative town who proclaims that he's going to block Home Depot from opening a franchise due to the fact that its owner donates to pro-gay marriage groups? Would that be OK?

Let's do a "plug in the manipulative rhetoric," tweaking the Boston mayor's phrasing to show what it would be like on the other side. "You can't have a business in the city of [UltraConservativeTown] that discriminates against a [traditional family-friendly] population. We're a [traditional] city, we're a city that's at the forefront of [support for the traditional family]... If [Home Depot] needs licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they [change] their [stance]." How about the Chicago mayor? "[Home Depot] values are not [UltraConservativeTown] values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents."

Would anyone here be cool with that?

When this whole "the Southern Baptist owner of Chick-fil-A opposes gay marriage - GASP - SHOCK" started, I shrugged it off. Of course he does. So what? Those who don't want to support his establishment don't have to.

It's only when these mayors started coming out and saying they're going to block him from doing business that I took note. This precedent cannot be established. If it is, where does it stop? Are mayors going to go through each business owner's tax records to ensure that he only gives his money to "acceptable" groups (which begs the question, "acceptable" to whom)? And those who don't hold the "acceptable" views or donate their money to "acceptable" groups have to pack up and leave town? Since when is this OK in America?

This is my exact view of the situation. Thank you for articulating what I was too lazy to try to write.

Brad

[TrueFaith77]

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Chicken-Biscuit

:lol:

[Macfanforever]

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Chicken-Biscuit

:lol:

I"ll pass on it.I just got heartburn as I went to that website.LOL....

[QueenStevie]

I've never eaten anything from Chick-fil-A, but I WILL later today because I want to show support for "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day", which was created in reaction to the boycott of Chick-fil-A by pro-gay marriage activists.

So, this is what I ordered yesterday and it was SO GOOD and better than what I had expected: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Spicy-Chicken-Sandwich-Deluxe

[BombaySapphire3]

So, this is what I ordered yesterday and it was SO GOOD and better than what I had expected: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Spicy-Chicken-Sandwich-Deluxe

Really? it kind of reminds me of a week old cowpie stuck between two pieces of moldy roll.

[mylittledemon]

Was I the only one bothered by the response from The Muppets? :lol: (see my 2nd (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=1060321&postcount=2) post in this thread)

[HomerMcvie]

Was I the only one bothered by the response from The Muppets? (see my 2nd (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=1060321&postcount=2) post in this thread)

I wonder if Dan Cathy has ever sent pics of his wee wee to a bunch of gay boys?:lol:


:wavey::wavey::wavey:


:sorry::sorry::sorry:


:lol::lol::lol:

[mylittledemon]

I wonder if Dan Cathy has ever sent pics of his wee wee to a bunch of gay boys?:lol:



:lol:

I guarantee there would've been less press over it if he had.

[HomerMcvie]

:lol:

I guarantee there would've been less press over it if he had.

I'm certain of that!!!!:lol:


Live and learn, right?:wavey:

[mylittledemon]

Live and learn, right?:wavey:

Heh... I wouldn't change a thing. And besides, what does that have to do with the Muppets! ;)

[HomerMcvie]

Heh... I wouldn't change a thing. And besides, what does that have to do with the Muppets! ;)

Well, a sock toy is a sock toy, right?:lol::lol::lol:

[mylittledemon]

Did I use a sock? I don't even remember now... Christ, being in your 30s sucks... :laugh:

[TrueFaith77]

http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Chicken-Biscuit

:lol:

It looks like some kind of surrealist pop art.

[HejiraNYC]

Was I the only one bothered by the response from The Muppets? :lol: (see my 2nd (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=1060321&postcount=2) post in this thread)

No offense, but this is not a free speech issue. The right wingnuts would have you believe that it is, but it really isn't. Dan Cathy spoke his mind and his company made financial contributions to hate groups that single out GLBT for persecution. He did not break any laws for what he said. He did not go to jail or get arrested for what he said. He is merely (deservedly) experiencing the consequences of being openly against equality and on the wrong side of history.

Also, by voicing their position on the issue and acting on it, the Henson corporation is, in a sense, exercising their free speech. Why would you be opposed to that? Not only is it the right thing to do socially, it is the smart thing to do from a business/branding perspective. Within the next ten years, when the anti-GLBT agenda has fully disintegrated, they will not be tarnished by their association with an outspoken bigot.

[TrueFaith77]

Hejira, What I'm confused by is your analogy with the KKK? Do you consider the KKK a criminal organization or is it just exercising its free speech?

[HejiraNYC]

Hejira, What I'm confused by is your analogy with the KKK? Do you consider the KKK a criminal organization or is it just exercising its free speech?

I'm not sure why you are making a point of this. Does it make any difference? A hate group is a hate group, legal or not. And, by the way, I believe that the modern day KKK is a perfectly legal patchwork of local white supremacist organizations, as opposed to a single, large, nationwide, monolithic organization. Yes, they were considered a "criminal" or "terrorist" organization 50+ years ago, but today, with the exception of a few rogue chapters and a few rogue incidents, they are pretty much operating within the bounds of the law. It doesn't make them any less repugnant and despicable, but they do have a right to free speech- a right that even the American Civil Liberties Union defends.

[cliffdweller]

Would it make any difference then if Chik Fil-A donated millions of dollars to the Ku Klux Klan? I mean, it's a free country and that is their right, right? That wouldn't make it an evil company, right? They would just be supporting what they believe in.

Yes, that is a slightly extreme comparison, but the principle is the same- the company actively supports organizations that seek to harm LGBT by denying them equal civil/financial rights and by practicing "reparative therapy," which has been completely discredited by the psychiatric community, and has been shown to inflict extreme psychological harm (often resulting in suicide). The Southern Poverty Law Institute has dubbed these organizations, e.g., Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. as hate groups. I think the KKK technically qualifies as a hate group as well. If the term "gay marriage" was substituted with the term "people of color" in Dan Cathy's interview, would that affect your stance on whether or not to continue to patronize Chik-Fil-A? And if the answer is yes, why do you think supporting discrimination/animus against GLBT is any different than supporting discrimination/animus against racial minorities?


I love everything about this post and agree 100%. This is the crux of the argument. People don't get how people like Dan Cathy and his support of said groups HARMS people. I guess because we're dealing with homosexuality, it's okay to discriminate? That kind of thinking needs to be run out on a rail and NOT tolerated AT ALL.

[cliffdweller]

Let me start by saying that I am well aware that the level of intelligent and reasoned discourse on The Ledge has plummeted in the last 3 years to about 5th grade reading comprehension. The majority of educated and thoughtful people flew the coop or were bant years ago. Regardless, I will bring up this topic.

What do you think about the brou haha over the owner of Chick Fil A saying he is proudly against gay marriage? He is unapologetic about donating many millions of dollars to groups like Focus on The Family, who fund all the anti gay marriage amendments across the country.

Here are my thoughts. In no particular order.

I heard this company did such things years ago. I vowed to never give them a cent. They opened a branch about a block from the border of West Hollywood last year. FYI Weho is the Gay Capital here in LA. I went there once to see what the fuss was all about.

The waffle fries were soft. The bun was squishy and flat. The chicken was neither crispy spicy nor was it firm. Overall, it was a letdown. It goes without saying that we gays like our buns firm, and our meat spicy and standing at attention. The food was lame. I wasn't impressed. And I was open to being impressed. If the buns are firm and the meat is top notch, I am there. No go at this place.

I didn't spend a dime of my own money. I turned the meal in on my show. But I do spend my own money with thought. I am not going to spend my cash at a place that actively works to attack homos like myself. This was simply an experiment and it was about 6 bucks.

Now that the owner has come out with his statement, there seems to be a line drawn in the sand. And it has had some odd consequences. '

Tomorrow, on my time, is Chick Fil A appreciation day. Which is evidently the day everyone who opposes gay marriage should spend money there. For which, Sarah Palin and her strangely gay looking (tight plaid pearl button shirt) husband, tweeted a pic of them holding a sack of the food with a thumbs up sign. Sarah had the thumbs up. Gay looking beefcake dude merely looked at the camera grinning.

In turn, government officials from Boston and Chicago said the company was not welcome in their town. The Jim Henson company bailed on a Muppet toy tie in. In retaliation, CFA said the Muppet toys had "safety issues."

Henson has every right to sever ties. But clearly they didn't do due diligence. It is no secret what this company thinks and where they put their money.

But I think the city people are out of bounds. They can't legally deny CFA the right to do business in their cities. I think that is illegal and unethical. Could a bible belt city like Atlanta deny Starbucks a franchise because they are pro gay marriage?

No. Imagine the scandal.

Here is what I cannot understand, and it makes all of the anti gay marriage groups irrelevant: where is the support for straight marriages? Take those by now hundreds of millions of dollars donated to deny the right of gay people to marry. Take that money and open free marriage counseling centers all over the country. Offer pre- marital counseling on conflict resolution, financial planning, and sexual communication. That would eliminate half the divorces right there. And also offer the same services to married people in trouble. THAT is supporting and protecting marriage. Preventing the expansion of marriage rights hasn't saved a single marriage of any str8 people. Honestly. Who ever said, "I got divorced because Ellen and that Ally McBeal chick got married"?

Please.

These people need to put their money where their mouth hole is.

I know that divorce damages people - adults and kids both. If these organizations are so committed to the institution of marriage, where is their support of people getting married and those who are struggling to stay married? There is none. It is all about hating the gays. All about their relentless fascination and obsession with men having sex with each other. Trust me. They never mention lesbians in any meaningful way. The focus is all on "sodomy" and a barrage of commentary on butt sex. And when someone mentions sodomy between heterosexuals there is silence. Is there a hetero couple on earth who hasn't had oral or anal sex? The hypocrisy is unreal yet utterly predictable.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

I stopped reading this post after the first sentence. Alienating your audience is usually not what you want to do BEFORE making your point. Good job.

[HomerMcvie]

Did I use a sock? I don't even remember now... Christ, being in your 30s sucks... :laugh:

I don't know.
I've heard that someone once used it as their avatar, on another FM board.:lol::lol::lol:

[KarmaContestant]

haha! hahahaha!

Check this out: Same-Sex kiss in planned today at Chick-Fil-A

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/03/13104208-pro-gay-marriage-groups-plan-chick-fil-a-kiss-in?lite&ocid=ansmsnbc11

By Martha C. White, NBC News contributor
Updated 1:30 p.m. ET: Two days after supporters of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's stance against gay marriage flocked to its restaurants for an Appreciation Day, pro-gay marriage advocates are descending on the fast-food chain with a message of their own.

"We want to show Chick-fil-A and the country that the LGBT community's love is just as valid, just as good as heterosexual love," said grassroots advocate Carly McGehee.

McGehee started "National Same-Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A" at which she said same-sex couples are encouraged to visit the chain, "have a quick smooch or hug or show of affection," then post a photo or video of it online. She said organizers of local kiss-ins have been told to suggest that participants take their pictures outside the restaurants by its signs to avoid violating trespassing ordinances.

[estranged4life]

Chick Fil A and "Fifty Shades of Grey" being mentioned on the talk radio here, I think I'm tired of both and will go to KFC and purchase a copy of "Hustler" magazine, lol!

[Macfanforever]

Chick Fil A and "Fifty Shades of Grey" being mentioned on the talk radio here, I think I'm tired of both and will go to KFC and purchase a copy of "Hustler" magazine, lol!

Hahaha Hustler mag.I alway find that the KFC's food was always to peppery.I'm not a big pepper fan.

[mylittledemon]

I don't know.
I've heard that someone once used it as their avatar, on another FM board.:lol::lol::lol:

Ha! And I'm the weird one? :rolleyes:


Also, by voicing their position on the issue and acting on it, the Henson corporation is, in a sense, exercising their free speech. Why would you be opposed to that? Not only is it the right thing to do socially, it is the smart thing to do from a business/branding perspective. Within the next ten years, when the anti-GLBT agenda has fully disintegrated, they will not be tarnished by their association with an outspoken bigot.

Yeah I just felt it was fine for the Hensons to do it, not for the Muppets themselves. I think they shouldn't be used to back an issue... that's all I was trying to say.

[HomerMcvie]

Ha! And I'm the weird one? :rolleyes:



I never said you were weird. And it wasn't a guy using your pic, for the record.:lol:
Hell, I did sound for a "biker rally" the past two days(good lord, it's the lowest form of human DNA). They had boobie contests(of course)......then(which I'd never seen before) they had pussy and c*ck contests! Women, ON STAGE, spreading their bidness, then men doing the same thing, showing their members.

I'm no prude, by any stretch of the imagination,.....but we sound guys were saying, "you know, if I had a 12" c*ck, I'd be out there showing it, too!!!!". But alas, we just sat behind them, drinking beer, and pervin', taking pics!:lol:

[mylittledemon]

I never said you were weird. And it wasn't a guy using your pic, for the record.:lol:

:lol: Oh I know you didn't... it was more of a rhetorical question ;)

We get Boobs On Bikes every year here in Wellington... right down the middle of the street... topless ladies on motorbikes for all to see!

[HomerMcvie]

:lol: Oh I know you didn't... it was more of a rhetorical question ;)

We get Boobs On Bikes every year here in Wellington... right down the middle of the street... topless ladies on motorbikes for all to see!

Well I'd seen the boob shows many times, but had never really witnessed the "complete genital extravaganza!" I can't even fathom getting onstage, in front of a thousand people, shaking little David at them!

While I am a very sexual being, I'm still modest, and embarrassed by my body, just like I was raised!:confused::shocked::rolleyes::wavey::lol::eek:

[mylittledemon]

While I am a very sexual being, I'm still modest, and embarrassed by my body, just like I was raised!:confused::shocked::rolleyes::wavey::lol::eek:

My sister told me that she heard my mother say something to that effect once, and that it made her want to vomit. :laugh:

[Fireflies]

I've never eaten anything from Chick-fil-A, but I WILL later today because I want to show support for "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day", which was created in reaction to the boycott of Chick-fil-A by pro-gay marriage activists.

So, this is what I ordered yesterday and it was SO GOOD and better than what I had expected: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Spicy-Chicken-Sandwich-Deluxe

i'm sorry--what the **** are you talking about? are you seriously venting anti-gay sentiments in this thread? you must be a troll. :lol:

[ButterCookie]

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1116385_o.gif

[louielouie2000]

Just as a FYI, all viewpoints are valid, and name calling/personal accusations need to be left at the door. :wavey:

[Macfanforever]

Just as a FYI, all viewpoints are valid, and name calling/personal accusations need to be left at the door. :wavey:

I agree.

On the antique radio forum that I hang out .They had a thread on The Chick Fil A flap.The other night it looks like the mods deleted the thread altogether because of it was getting bad with the negative crap about the LGBT community and this guys religion and beliefs .As part of their rules they do not allow discussions on politics or religion on the forum.

[KarmaContestant]

Just as a FYI, all viewpoints are valid

I know you're just doing your job as a moderator, but that statement makes me laugh.

The Prideful, Arrogant CEO of Chick-fil-A
Why ignorance of human sexuality is dangerous.
By Jesse Bering|Posted Monday, Aug. 6, 2012, at 2:00 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/chick_fil_a_controversy_why_dan_cathy_s_statements_are_dangerous_.html

For several tense weeks, our nation has been broiling unpleasantly in the cultural equivalent of polyunsaturated fat. And despite any profits or political points made during this Chick-fil-A debacle, I think we’ve all gotten a bit burned. As everyone now knows, this entire ordeal—from the Mike Huckabee-orchestrated “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” to the “Same-Sex Kiss Day” that came after, the talking heads, the relentless stream of articles and opinion pieces on the controversy, the thousands upon thousands of online comments, the vitriolic tweets, impulsive Facebook statuses, and equally tart replies, the strained friendships, heated arguments with family members, all of it—began when Chick-fil-A’s CEO, Dan Cathy, said in an interview with the Baptist Press that the company was “guilty as charged” when it came to endorsing the biblical view of traditional marriage. Several days later, on the Ken Coleman show, Cathy clarified that when it comes to legalizing same-sex marriage, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

When I first read about this story, it was actually mildly amusing to me. At least, it was amusing in the same way that the Crouches, that dazzlingly peculiar televangelist couple on TBN, unexpectedly paralyze my index finger while channel surfing. You may know the Crouches: She with Pomeranian on her lap, a towering pink wig on her skull, and tarantula lashes affixed to her face; he, slim, mustachioed, in a white suit, capped by a bounty of salt-and-pepper hair; both perched atop gilded thrones and cackling about sweet Baby Jesus while fleecing arthritic widows in Alabama whose most meaningful daily interactions are with expressionless, alabaster-faced dolls. As with these anomalous Crouches, with Cathy there was something so, what’s the word, absurd; something about this truculent, evangelical, Southern fried-chicken magnate getting so red in the face about an issue so completely innocuous as the gender of love. There’s nothing particularly new under the sun about Cathy’s religious beliefs concerning homosexuality, of course, but for him to be such a perfect caricature of scornful, Americanized Christianity, was a welcome diversion from whatever it was I was writing at the time. Imagine if Elmer Fudd had a love child with Jesse Helms’ mother, and there, I thought to myself, you have Dan Cathy.

But then the story became more worrisome than comical. It turns out that Dan Cathy, along with his father, Truett, oversees a “charitable endeavor” called the WinShape Foundation. This decades-old private foundation is fueled by Chick-fil-A revenue and—distressingly so for those in the LGBT community—it’s been promiscuously using high-profit margins from the sale of all those slaughtered cocks to further anti-gay causes, funding notorious groups such as Exodus International and Focus on the Family. “So what’s the problem?” replied Cathy supporters once these facts became widely known. (I’ll paraphrase en masse for both sides what I understand to be the central points of each.) “Free speech is still legal in this country, right? And gosh darn it, a man can do with his well-earned money whatever it is he wants to do with it in the U.S. of A., so long as it’s legal.” “But don’t you understand?” countered the other side. “This isn’t about a business owner’s religious freedom, or his right to voice his opinion and invest in political causes that he favors. It’s about our troubling willingness to patronize a company that so brazenly sinks its funds into hate campaigns and whose CEO genuinely believes that God will seek terrible vengeance on us for our country’s growing tolerance of homosexuals.”

If it’s not already perfectly clear, I’m firmly on the side of the latter. That is to say, on the side of good and the side of sanity. Sure, fine, technically, Cathy and his compatriots at Chick-fil-A aren’t violating anyone’s civil rights. To the contrary, as many Democrats and Republicans alike have explained, Cathy runs his Chick-fil-A enterprise in the quintessential American spirit. But Cathy’s business sense isn’t the problem. Rather, the problem is that he’s being a real American in another sense, one that is not a compliment to our nation.

There was a time, not so very long ago, when business owners in Southern states proudly poured their riches into segregationist causes. These investment strategies (and the political fruits they bore) helped keep “Negroes” in their place as second-class citizens. And just as we’ve been seeing with the enthusiastic support for Chick-fil-A by the “moral majority,” the racist business models of those segregationists rallied local social conservatives. Like the WinShape Foundation’s shameless use of Chick-fil-A proceeds to support the efforts of the Family Research Council, as well as many other anti-gay outlets designated as official hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a wealthy white citizen’s public segregationist stance back in, say, 1960 Mississippi or Tennessee, and his decision to put his company’s proceeds into racist political causes, was not only perfectly legal but hailed by most of his customer base. After all, just as same-sex marriage is today, the rights of blacks were a “political issue.” People spoke of “personal beliefs” about whether blacks should vote, marry outside their race, drink at public water fountains, swim in public pools, attend schools with white students, or sit in the front of the bus. Those whose “personal belief” was that blacks should be socially quarantined from whites felt absolutely no reason to apologize. People were “entitled to their opinions.”

Fortunately for African-Americans, the U.S. government, which grows sluggishly, if incrementally, in its social conscience, eventually joined them and threw its weight into their tireless crusade against bigotry and prejudice. Federal civil rights laws effectively obviated the “personal beliefs” of those who continued to view blacks as lesser beings, making these people’s “opinions” completely irrelevant as to what African-Americans should or shouldn’t do in our society. In other words, the racists were stripped of their democratic voices—and a very good thing that was, too, as it’s clear even today that many white Americans remain of the opinion that blacks are inherently inferior to them. Racism persists, but at least racists have been formally politically defanged. Homophobes, meanwhile, have not. (Before I get complaints about the semantic misfit of the label homophobe, pointing out that one is not “afraid” of gays but rather disagrees with the “gay lifestyle,” feel free to replace it with “bigoted asshole.”)

There is, of course, the little problem of God, so often the common denominator in human conflicts. Cathy’s thunderous sermon about the hazards of upsetting this irritable arbiter of our souls resonated with the religious right. So let us deconstruct Cathy’s words to see if we might better understand their seduction:

I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist
at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’
and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant
attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

Cathy does at least preface this by saying, “I think,” but otherwise this to me is the hoary language of a man who has little familiarity with texts that were not [ahem] dictated by the Almighty and who has therefore missed out on so many infinitely more talented and intelligent authors, those who were more godly than God. On opposing sides of that yawning moral crevasse dividing liberals and conservatives, a gap that has widened several new inches by this surprise Chick-fil-A quake, the rhetorical turns of phrase we find in Cathy’s Armageddon script tend to mean very different things. For instance, for liberals, “prideful” would be read in this context as “scientifically literate,” “arrogant attitude” is perhaps best translated as “open-minded,” and “audacity” means simply, “the courage to think for oneself.”

In my first book, The Belief Instinct, I explain how scientific studies are revealing how the human brain conjures up the subjective feeling of a morally concerned God that “communicates” his displeasure to us through natural disasters and other misfortunes. (Notice that in cases such as Cathy’s warning of God’s wrath, the believer never asks exactly how God causes such natural events, but only why he does so.) God may seem real, but he is almost certainly all in our heads—a complex cognitive illusion melded by mindless evolutionary forces. At the very least, the chances of there being a God disproportionately focused on the sexual behaviors of one particular creature, a depilated primate, out of the billions of distinct species that have ever walked, flown, crawled, slithered or hopped upon his earth, is so minuscule that the idea requires a prodigious degree of egocentrism to entertain. Actually, that, Mr. Cathy—this frail assumption of yours that human beings are the epicenter of life on this planet—is where most liberals apply the word “arrogance.”

My other book, Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?: And Other Reflections on Being Human, is a collection of essays dealing mainly with the science of human sexuality. In it, I play tour guide through a number of research areas that are especially relevant to Cathy’s rumblings about marriage equality. These include the developmental origins of sexual orientation, the mental processes thought to underlie homophobia, and the startlingly high rates of depression and suicide in gay youth.

One of the great frustrations faced by science writers is that, more often than not, we’re preaching to the choir. People who really need to be exposed to critical scientific information regarding homosexuality are, frankly, either too unintelligent to understand the research or—more unforgivably—they’re perfectly smart enough, it’s just that they’re too incurious about the deep complexities of human psychology to bother to learn. Now, for many subject areas in science, such cognitive dullards and intellectual sloths are easy to ignore, even when they display remarkable naivete. To be unaware of the chemical composition of water, for instance, is certainly sad, but such ignorance is usually pretty harmless. But with a basic scientific understanding of sexual orientation, ignorance can be sinister. Knowledge may not trump hatred in all cases, but for most reasonable individuals, it tends to facilitate humanity.

If you’re doubtful of the danger of stupidity, consider a sampling of public tweets I’ve dredged up by combining gay epithets with “Chick-fil-A.” (Try your own search on Twitter; the concentrated hate goes on for miles.) I should warn you in advance that this list is chilling, especially if you or someone you love, perhaps your child, is gay or lesbian. But for those of us normally surrounded by at least moderately bright and kind people, it is too easy to lose sight of the animus that gays and lesbians face in American society. I also think it’s important to be aware of just how Cathy’s religious statements—no matter his “love the sinner, hate the sin” jargon, no matter the issue of free speech—actually translates for a populace that is always ready to pounce on an opportunity to dehumanize its most vulnerable. In implying that God sees homosexuals as evil, Cathy declared open season on us.

•Going to Chick-fil-A cause I hate fags ‪#Merica
•dont bring your children to chick fil a tonight. all the fags are gonna be there making out
•You ignorant dykes need to shut the **** up about this Chick fil a ****! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT...DON'T EAT IT! Simple!
•Lol at all the fags protrsting chick-fil-a. Its a ****ing fast food resturant calm down #hahaha
•who the **** cares that Chick-Fil-A's owner doesnt support gay rights? its called freedom of speech, so take the ‪#cock out of your ‪#ass fags
•And a child will suffer: a carpet muncher holdin a child in front of a disappoint showin at Chick-fil-A this should make all Fags proud
•Protesting against chick fil a is goin to get you nowhere its his own beliefs he has the freedom of speech freedom of religion shut up dikes
•Relax you fags. Chick-fil-a is only trying to save you the torture of marriage, you can still butt **** and spread aids all you want
•Hell no all this fags talking about walking in to chick-fil-a and kissing each other... Hell no whos down to shoot the place up?? Lmao
•yall faggots n dikes can serve n the military openly now yaw wanna take chick-fil-a from us. smh
•Oh, I BEG you to go. Please, please, PLEASE go to Chick-fil-A and try to beat up some faggots. ‪#rudeawakening
•All these faggots at chick fil a bout to catch a bat to the head I'm against this **** go get you some pussy
•Real **** if I see some faggots kissing at Chick-fil-A its going down I'm hittin they mf ass with rocks
•If I go eat chick- fil- a anytime soon and there are faggots on protest making out in there I will throw up all over them I promise.
•Everybody needs to eat chick-fil a. Down with the faggots!! ‪#queerspolutingthiscountry
•Dad wouldn't go to Chick fil a cuz he said he didn't wanna see all the faggots. LOL ‪#ILoveYouDAD
•The only ‪#hate is towards ‪#Chick-Fil-A from ‪#faggots and ‪#dikes
•I love chick Fil a even more , now that they hate queers.

It is society that is sick, not the sexual minorities. Yet the most tragic thing about this admittedly odd cultural flare-up involving a chicken chain and gay rights is that there are countless—and I mean that quite literally, since I suspect many will be inspired to retreat permanently into their closets after an incident so vile as this—gay teenagers and young adults who have been watching in silent terror as it has all unfolded. For them, every single body on proud display at the “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” not to mention those leaning out of their car windows to scream “faggots!” and “dykes!” at gay couples milling about or kissing, was a tangible reminder of just how much they really do have to fear in this country. (Meanwhile, we’re trying to convince them that “It Gets Better.”) So know this: From the unspoken perspective of all the petrified, closeted 15-year-olds out there (I used to be one myself, after all), it makes absolutely no difference, none whatsoever, what your motives are in rallying behind Chick-fil-A. All they see is your raw hate.

Let Aug. 1, 2012, go down as a day of infamy and national disgrace. On that day, at-risk gay youth all over this country watched as an endless, self-righteous trail of Americans wrapped itself round and round Chick-fil-A franchises across the land. And in this rare agglutination of the moral majority, they glimpsed the living, breathing presence of a brutal force whose sole aim it is to bully them into one of three equally disastrous directions: that of sham heterosexual marriage (and the deception of an opposite-sex spouse); the repressed life of a hypocritical moralizer, or that of virginal, social reclusion. My message to any young LGBT people who’ve been understandably rattled by this depressing affair is this: If these kinds of “lifestyles” are preferable for the religious right over the “alternative lifestyle” of living honestly and openly with the person you love, in matrimony, then fu*k them. Oh, and by the way, fu*k you, if you’re one of them.

[HejiraNYC]

Cathy does at least preface this by saying, “I think,” but otherwise this to me is the hoary language of a man who has little familiarity with texts that were not [ahem] dictated by the Almighty and who has therefore missed out on so many infinitely more talented and intelligent authors, those who were more godly than God. On opposing sides of that yawning moral crevasse dividing liberals and conservatives, a gap that has widened several new inches by this surprise Chick-fil-A quake, the rhetorical turns of phrase we find in Cathy’s Armageddon script tend to mean very different things. For instance, for liberals, “prideful” would be read in this context as “scientifically literate,” “arrogant attitude” is perhaps best translated as “open-minded,” and “audacity” means simply, “the courage to think for oneself.”

One of the great frustrations faced by science writers is that, more often than not, we’re preaching to the choir. People who really need to be exposed to critical scientific information regarding homosexuality are, frankly, either too unintelligent to understand the research or—more unforgivably—they’re perfectly smart enough, it’s just that they’re too incurious about the deep complexities of human psychology to bother to learn. Now, for many subject areas in science, such cognitive dullards and intellectual sloths are easy to ignore, even when they display remarkable naivete. To be unaware of the chemical composition of water, for instance, is certainly sad, but such ignorance is usually pretty harmless. But with a basic scientific understanding of sexual orientation, ignorance can be sinister. Knowledge may not trump hatred in all cases, but for most reasonable individuals, it tends to facilitate humanity.


This is a great essay but, alas, it will not be read by the people for whom it was intended. Indeed, in the absence of a clear, intelligent reasoning process, too many people balk at things like facts, logic and reason. Suddenly they become the victims. To quote a real housewife of Orange County, "You can't argue with stupid."

[olive]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=506380199388632&set=a.224321947594460.75723.224319224261399&type=1&theater

Sad but true

[sodascouts]

Debate will never be productive as long as each side is constantly vilifying and insulting the other.

[HejiraNYC]

Debate will never be productive as long as each side is constantly vilifying and insulting the other.

There really is no debate here. You can't make a case based on fact, logic, reason and humanity when the counter-argument is based purely on ancient stories that have been re-transcribed and (mis-)interpreted a gazillion times through the years or on fabricated pseudo-science funded by hate groups. There is a reason why, time and time again, the defenders of "traditional marriage" have lost every court case and every appeal that they have pushed: one cannot defend the indefensible. It's time to move beyond the useless debates and start effecting policy- through either legislative or judicial means. Who cares what the public may or may not think about an issue that is 150% a personal decision made between two consenting adults that does not affect anyone else in the slightest. History has proven time and time again that society is better off when civil rights are strengthened for all people.

[sodascouts]

Court cases are debates, in miniature. I think it's pretty evident that it's reasonable debate that enables the progression of gay rights, not the shouting of insults.

[HejiraNYC]

Court cases are debates, in miniature. I think it's pretty evident that it's reasonable debate that enables the progression of gay rights, not the shouting of insults.

Is there really a "reasonable" debate against same sex marriage? :shrug: Please, someone somewhere offer one legitimate public interest that is served by preventing marriage equality for GLBT. I'm begging all of you to come up with something so we can have a civil discussion!

[sodascouts]

This thread is about responses to Cathy's interview in that Christian magazine. The ugly comments that have resulted from both sides benefit no one.

[iamnotafraid]

There really is no debate here. You can't make a case based on fact, logic, reason and humanity when the counter-argument is based purely on ancient stories that have been re-transcribed and (mis-)interpreted a gazillion times through the years...

HejiraNYC,
Do you deny that Jesus is the Christ?

I'm not asking for a diatribe, just a yes or no.

[louielouie2000]

HejiraNYC,
Do you deny that Jesus is the Christ?

I'm not asking for a diatribe, just a yes or no.

See? To me, religion has absolutely zero relevence in this issue... it is simply a distractive wedge. Folks who are fighting for gay marriage are not doing so to break the back of organized religion; they are pushing for equal protection & opportunity under the law. The US may be an overwhelmingly Christian nation, but it is not a theocracy, and our 200+ year old constitution lays that out pretty clearly. Gay marriage proponents are not fighting for the church to recognize or condone their unions... they are simply pushing for equality under the law. This boils down to economics, not religion. It is my opinion that individual churches should be allowed to decide whether or not they wish to recognize or perform same sex unions under the protective umbrella of religious freedom. However, every state should recognize same sex unions legally so that homosexual couples have the same legal protections & economic advantages as their heterosexual counterparts.

[HejiraNYC]

HejiraNYC,
Do you deny that Jesus is the Christ?

I'm not asking for a diatribe, just a yes or no.

I think you just proved my point. :lol:

[HejiraNYC]

See? To me, religion has absolutely zero relevence in this issue... it is simply a distractive wedge. Folks who are fighting for gay marriage are not doing so to break the back of organized religion; they are pushing for equal protection & opportunity under the law. The US may be an overwhelmingly Christian nation, but it is not a theocracy, and our 200+ year old constitution lays that out pretty clearly. Gay marriage proponents are not fighting for the church to recognize or condone their unions... they are simply pushing for equality under the law. This boils down to economics, not religion. It is my opinion that individual churches should be allowed to decide whether or not they wish to recognize or perform same sex unions under the protective umbrella of religious freedom. However, every state should recognize same sex unions legally so that homosexual couples have the same legal protections & economic advantages as their heterosexual counterparts.

See... I sometimes wonder whether people are being willfully ignorant about the founding principles of the U.S. and the constitution, or whether people just regurgitate the talking points they hear on Faux News because they think they sound kinda clever. And what of all of the hullabaloo about the so-called "war on religion." Really? GLBT individuals having the right to marry the person of their choosing is tantamount to a war on religion? Are we burning bibles? Burning churches? Throwing Christians into an arena full of lions? In the U.S., we are supposed to have freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. I will defend to the death the right of any American to worship anything they want to worship, whether it's some surfer dude wearing a robe or some writer of mediocre science fiction novels. Just as long as they keep their religion to themselves and stop meddling in other people's lives about matters that have nothing to do with them.

[BombaySapphire3]

HejiraNYC,
Do you deny that Jesus is the Christ?

I'm not asking for a diatribe, just a yes or no.

Where is Dissension when you need him:shrug:

[iamnotafraid]

I think you just proved my point. :lol:

And unfortunately you just proved mine.
One day you will have to stand before Jesus,
the one you openly mock.

Louielouie,
The reason I asked Hejira that was because of
what he wrote. I wasn't going to even comment
this time in this particular thread. But in trying
to make his point, he always puts down Christian
beliefs.

And even though you and I (and others) disagree
on this issue, at least some do so in a more civil manner.

I believe it's more than just Christians trying to control
the way others live. It affects us too. Since God punishes
sin, we believe that we also will be punished for allowing
it (gay marriage, homosexual rights) to be legal, at least
in the eyes of man.

We all sin, I certainly do. That why our only hope is Christ
Jesus.

[BombaySapphire3]

And unfortunately you just proved mine.
One day you will have to stand before Jesus,
the one you openly mock.

Louielouie,
The reason I asked Hejira that was because of
what he wrote. I wasn't going to even comment
this time in this particular thread. But in trying
to make his point, he always puts down Christian
beliefs.

And even though you and I (and others) disagree
on this issue, at least some do so in a more civil manner.

I believe it's more than just Christians trying to control
the way others live. It affects us too. Since God punishes
sin, we believe that we also will be punished for allowing
it (gay marriage, homosexual rights) to be legal, at least
in the eyes of man.

We all sin, I certainly do. That why our only hope is Christ
Jesus.

If you have been eatting shellfish and wearing buttons on your clothing that is also a sin.

[HejiraNYC]

If you have been eatting shellfish and wearing buttons on your clothing that is also a sin.

We are also not stoning disobedient children, disobedient wives and single non-virgins to death. Shame on us all! We shall all be sent on the downtown express train to the fiery pit of eternity for not stopping these evil sins!

[HejiraNYC]

And unfortunately you just proved mine.
The reason I asked Hejira ... always puts down Christian
beliefs.

I believe it's more than just Christians trying to control
the way others live. It affects us too. Since God punishes
sin, we believe that we also will be punished for allowing
it (gay marriage, homosexual rights) to be legal, at least
in the eyes of man.

We all sin, I certainly do. That why our only hope is Christ
Jesus.

I would remind you that, um... Jesus supposedly died for your sins so that you won't get punished by God for all of those pesky sins that you commit every day of your life. Perhaps you would be higher up on the VIP list to get into heaven if you worried about all of your own sins rather than worrying about others' sins? How does that old saying go about those without sin casting stones...

Anyway, can we change the subject... I find the topic of Mormon undergarments a lot more interesting.

[QueenStevie]

Allowing same-sex marriage is really a MAJOR Slap in the Face to God! It's VERY Hurtful to Him. So, we serve God's interest when we don't allow same-sex marriage to take place. And that's the deal with that!

[BombaySapphire3]

Allowing same-sex marriage is really a MAJOR Slap in the Face to God! It's VERY Hurtful to Him. So, we serve God's interest when we don't allow same-sex marriage to take place. And that's the deal with that!

I think eatting a disgusting looking overprocessed and oozing with fat globules chicken sandwich should also be deemed a sin!Is it too late to add another addendum to the Bible.:shrug:

[louielouie2000]

Anyway, can we change the subject... I find the topic of Mormon undergarments a lot more interesting.

How is this a topic I am ignornant on? Please do elaborate! :laugh:

[HejiraNYC]

How is this a topic I am ignornant on? Please do elaborate! :laugh:

Here ya go....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_underwear

I wonder what you will find if you try to give Mitt Romney a wedgie!

[louielouie2000]

Here ya go....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_underwear

I wonder what you will find if you try to give Mitt Romney a wedgie!

Interesting. Those modern male undergarments aren't all that different than what many guys wear, though... kinda looks like boxers & white tees to me. :shrug: Still, I didn't realize such a thing existed in this religion. Thanks for schooling me! :nod:

This line of discussion definitely incites another, though. Romney seems to be largely accepted by the overwhelmingly evangelical right wing. I personally attended an extremely conservative Southern Baptist high school (the school taught those who celebrate Christmas were evil, because there is no mention of December 25th in the Bible) where I was instructed on the evils of cults, Mormanism being the most prominent one in America (just regurgitating what I was "taught," folks). I just find the right wing's acceptence of Romney's Mormanism to be more than a bit hypocritical. If conservatives are staunchly standing behind 'traditional marriage,' then what are they doing nominating someone whose religion permits polygamy? :shrug: If there were a left wing candidate who was Morman, I can almost guarantee the religious right would rip him to pieces. Indeed, there never would be a left wing nominee for president who is openly Morman because he/she would not withstand the withering heat from the right wing.

[louielouie2000]

And unfortunately you just proved mine.
One day you will have to stand before Jesus,
the one you openly mock.

Louielouie,
The reason I asked Hejira that was because of
what he wrote. I wasn't going to even comment
this time in this particular thread. But in trying
to make his point, he always puts down Christian
beliefs.

And even though you and I (and others) disagree
on this issue, at least some do so in a more civil manner.

I believe it's more than just Christians trying to control
the way others live. It affects us too. Since God punishes
sin, we believe that we also will be punished for allowing
it (gay marriage, homosexual rights) to be legal, at least
in the eyes of man.

We all sin, I certainly do. That why our only hope is Christ
Jesus.

Allowing same-sex marriage is really a MAJOR Slap in the Face to God! It's VERY Hurtful to Him. So, we serve God's interest when we don't allow same-sex marriage to take place. And that's the deal with that!

But once again, why do Christians obsess over this one issue so much? The Bible cites many 'sins'... why are there not millions rallying in support of stoning adulterous women to death? Where are the restaurant eat ins in support of businesses that proclaim they will not serve the sinful shellfish? Why aren't Christians boycotting the NFL over their touching of dead pig skins? Why hasn't Nancy Reagan been run out of town on rails for not remarrying in her husband's family after Ronald's death? Where are the marches on Washington to deride Wal Mart for selling clothing with mixed fabric mediums? Homosexuality isn't even one of the 10 Commandments for Pete's sake. If someone choses to incite the adultery commandment, same sex marriage would handily fix that problem. :p

Once again, I completely understand those who feel they are protecting their religion from attack by rejecting same sex marriage. I just don't get when Tea Party/Evangelicals incite the constitution constantly... because the U.S. constitution is pretty explicit in regards to the role of religion in government.

I guess my overarching point is this: I simply cannot wrap my mind around the overreaching hypocrisy of those who are opponents of same sex marriage when they incite religion. Same sex unions are a purely economic/civil rights issue. They are mainly about same sex couples being able to be taxed and insured fairly, along with many other equally boring civil rights. I've never heard of one single same sex marriage proponent speak of forcing any religious organization to marry/recognize same sex couples. I could see how that would be an 'war on religion,' but no one is trying to shut down the Southern Baptist Convention.

[Macfanforever]

Here ya go....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_underwear

I wonder what you will find if you try to give Mitt Romney a wedgie!

Hahahaha.LOL .That just make me fell off my chair.

[michelle2677]

See? To me, religion has absolutely zero relevence in this issue... it is simply a distractive wedge.


and it's not a religious issue on the opposing side, either. as my boyfriend put it, during our very healthy and candid discussion tonight, "religion has nothing to do with it. it's a social prejudice and people don't want to come out and say 'i'm prejudice' so they hide behind the bible and say 'Jesus made me say it". it's not fair to the actual GOOD Christians who are out there who aren't close-minded and hypocritical. :shrug:

[HomerMcvie]

and it's not a religious issue on the opposing side, either. as my boyfriend put it, during our very healthy and candid discussion tonight, "religion has nothing to do with it. it's a social prejudice and people don't want to come out and say 'i'm prejudice' so they hide behind the bible and say 'Jesus made me say it". it's not fair to the actual GOOD Christians who are out there who aren't close-minded and hypocritical. :shrug:

~Like button~

It's nothing more than prejudice, period. WHY would anyone want to deny their neighbor that happiness(or misery :p) they have? It makes no sense, other than the idiotic human species hating change...

Open your f*cking mind, and GTF over it. Who cares!

[QueenStevie]

and it's not a religious issue on the opposing side, either. as my boyfriend put it, during our very healthy and candid discussion tonight, "religion has nothing to do with it. it's a social prejudice and people don't want to come out and say 'i'm prejudice' so they hide behind the bible and say 'Jesus made me say it". it's not fair to the actual GOOD Christians who are out there who aren't close-minded and hypocritical. :shrug:

DISLIKE Button on repeat!

[jannieC]

But once again, why do Christians obsess over this one issue so much? The Bible cites many 'sins'... why are there not millions rallying in support of stoning adulterous women to death? Where are the restaurant eat ins in support of businesses that proclaim they will not serve the sinful shellfish? Why aren't Christians boycotting the NFL over their touching of dead pig skins? Why hasn't Nancy Reagan been run out of town on rails for not remarrying in her husband's family after Ronald's death? Where are the marches on Washington to deride Wal Mart for selling clothing with mixed fabric mediums? Homosexuality isn't even one of the 10 Commandments for Pete's sake. If someone choses to incite the adultery commandment, same sex marriage would handily fix that problem.

Yes! I am certain you won't get a thoughtful response to this because there is not one to be made. There are so many aspects of the Bible that folks "overlook" because by following it word for word, they would have to make too many changes in their own lives. Typing on this Kindle is torture for me. I will come back when my laptop is fixed. :)

[olive]

Allowing same-sex marriage is really a MAJOR Slap in the Face to God! It's VERY Hurtful to Him. So, we serve God's interest when we don't allow same-sex marriage to take place. And that's the deal with that!

http://dustinstockton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/chikfilacontroversy.jpeg


https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/251810_10151083915146940_279220627_n.jpg

[HomerMcvie]

DISLIKE Button on repeat!

Do you really not want your fellow human beings to be happy?
To not have the rights that you do?
To love, marry, have children, and have spousal benefits?


Take a look in the mirror...
Be prepared, though, because it ain't pretty.

[olive]

Do you really not want your fellow human beings to be happy?
To not have the rights that you do?
To love, marry, have children, and have spousal benefits?


Take a look in the mirror...
Be prepared, though, because it ain't pretty.


Well put .

some of them ( i don't use or like the word haters) have children , which I am sure they have no Idea who they will be when they grow up .

now one of the biggest groups chick fil a supports want to start saving the children adopted by gays and lesbians by kidnapping them .. what will they do with them give them to the Sandusky's ? they need to look in their own back yards and see how they are doing on raising their own


http://unfinishedlives.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/anti-gay-protest.jpg

[cliffdweller]

Allowing same-sex marriage is really a MAJOR Slap in the Face to God! It's VERY Hurtful to Him.

Is this what he told you? Do tell... :rolleyes:

[estranged4life]

Where is Dissension when you need him:shrug:

away from here, that is for sure...

[1sttimelongtime]

This is the best thread ever!

[TrueFaith77]

There really is no debate here. You can't make a case based on fact, logic, reason and humanity when the counter-argument is based purely on ancient stories that have been re-transcribed and (mis-)interpreted a gazillion times through the years or on fabricated pseudo-science funded by hate groups. There is a reason why, time and time again, the defenders of "traditional marriage" have lost every court case and every appeal that they have pushed: one cannot defend the indefensible. It's time to move beyond the useless debates and start effecting policy- through either legislative or judicial means. Who cares what the public may or may not think about an issue that is 150% a personal decision made between two consenting adults that does not affect anyone else in the slightest. History has proven time and time again that society is better off when civil rights are strengthened for all people.

I agree. No debate here. You have no idea what are talking about.

[Macfanforever]

I dont need a book to run my life like some of these people do.I run it on my own.I do support same sex marriage .As I say let the people do what they want to.Don't let these
thumpers stop them.I have read that the corrupt insurance companies are up in arms about the same sex marriage .But they got to get over it.

[michelle2677]

Do you really not want your fellow human beings to be happy?
To not have the rights that you do?
To love, marry, have children, and have spousal benefits?


Take a look in the mirror...
Be prepared, though, because it ain't pretty.



http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a395/Michelle2677/335088-dont_feed_the_trolls_super.jpg

[HomerMcvie]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a395/Michelle2677/335088-dont_feed_the_trolls_super.jpg

I truly hope I might actually get them to self-reflect, and see how bigoted, and narrow minded their view of Christianity is. How very UN-christ like they are.

Because Christ was bigoted and hate filled, right?

[Christopher]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a395/Michelle2677/335088-dont_feed_the_trolls_super.jpg
:D:nod::xoxo:

[TrueFaith77]

And unfortunately you just proved mine.
One day you will have to stand before Jesus,
the one you openly mock.

Louielouie,
The reason I asked Hejira that was because of
what he wrote. I wasn't going to even comment
this time in this particular thread. But in trying
to make his point, he always puts down Christian
beliefs.

And even though you and I (and others) disagree
on this issue, at least some do so in a more civil manner.

I believe it's more than just Christians trying to control
the way others live. It affects us too. Since God punishes
sin, we believe that we also will be punished for allowing
it (gay marriage, homosexual rights) to be legal, at least
in the eyes of man.

We all sin, I certainly do. That why our only hope is Christ
Jesus.

Well this was wonderful. The spectacle on this thread of backslapping for each others' ignorance about both the Constitution and the Bible is troubling, sad, and probably makes me more upset than it should, so I applaud you for pointing out both. You and I may disagree on certain subjects ("homosexual rights"), but I respect that you--as some on this board have requested--have tested your "vote" against the Constitution and your conscience with more rigour than those who bandy about the Constitution the way they perceive some exploiting the Bible.

[KarmaContestant]

Christians are, at most, one third of the world. I'm not a Christian, Muslim or Jew and their traditions and rules don't apply to me.

I don't use my faith to influence your rights and privileges - don't do it to me.

As an American, I feel that your practice of your faith should never impact me and vice-versa.

At one time in history, Christians were persecuted and ridiculed - it is perhaps an ironic but all too common twist of fate that the formerly persecuted have become the perpetrators.

To some Christians, marriage may very well have strict definitions, but many of us are Human first and foremost - capable of human understanding and compassion, living in a secular nation where all are equal and our laws guarantee protection and equality for all, regardless of faith. The issue at hand here for people like me is just simply not a religious one - it is entirely a civil issue. In America, legal marriage is a civic function governed by law - not by Divine decree. We've talked about this before. Whatever involvement God has in a marriage is determined solely by the two individuals in that marriage.

I agree. No debate here.

And you're right, TrueFaith77, there is no debate here. I mean this as nicely as possible, but one cannot debate certain things with religious people - they are never swayed and always fall back on the same dogma, over and over, rendering any debate a vain waste of time and energy for both sides. So you're right - this is not debate - rather, it is shared dialogue, from a group that largely agrees and falls on the same side of an issue. :shrug:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

[TrueFaith77]

Some would say, such as Libertarians and me (for different reasons), that such a thing as "legal marriage [that] is a civic function governed by law" constitutes something that some people believe in (I presume you, KarmaContestant, are one such person), and that they (you) are using the force of government "to influence [my] rights and privileges."

Why should my taxpayer money go toward maintaining and facilitating the institution of legal marriage (regardless of how it is defined)?

[jannieC]

Why should my taxpayer money go toward maintaining and facilitating the institution of legal marriage (regardless of how it is defined)?

I know you weren't talking to me but how is your tax paying money maintaining and facilitating same sex marriage?

As a licensed therapist who agrees to work with children (I love working with children), I can't even tell you how close I am to saying I won't do it anymore. Why? Because I am sick to DEATH of fighting, divorced parents. I spent 8 hours in court on Tuesday in a custody case, as an "expert witness" when I could have been in my office, doing therapy. We Christian/heterosexuals are not doing such a great job in the marriage arena.

[TrueFaith77]

I know you weren't talking to me but how is your tax paying money maintaining and facilitating same sex marriage?

As a licensed therapist who agrees to work with children (I love working with children), I can't even tell you how close I am to saying I won't do it anymore. Why? Because I am sick to DEATH of fighting, divorced parents. I spent 8 hours in court on Tuesday in a custody case, as an "expert witness" when I could have been in my office, doing therapy. We Christian/heterosexuals are not doing such a great job in the marriage arena.

I know you aren't actually answering what I was saying. My question was perhaps vague. Let me repeat: Why should my tax paying money go to maintain and facilitate marriage (e.g., under current circumstances, opposite sex marriage)?

I agree with you that Christian/heterosexuals have RUINED the institution of marriage, beginning with making it "civil marriage," then no-fault divorce, etc etc ad infinitum. After having destroyed marriage, no wonder they now (statistically) favor giving it gay people like me.

As I think I have mentioned in the past, there are two wonderful works of gay art that were actual movies on the subject of marriage that are very challenging and enriching: 1) Francois Ozon's 5X2 2) Patrik Ian Polk's Noah's Arc: Jumping the Broom. But since American gays (like most American consumers) tend to lack any intellectual or cultural curiosity (and most are also racist), these movies were ignored in favor of those promoted by the mainstream and "gay agenda" publications. Hype wins all. And the discourses hosted here about marriage, The Constitution and The Bible all sound like recycled talking points from cable news. *yawn*

[KarmaContestant]

Some would say, such as Libertarians and me (for different reasons), that such a thing as "legal marriage [that] is a civic function governed by law" constitutes something that some people believe in (I presume you, KarmaContestant, are one such person), and that they (you) are using the force of government "to influence [my] rights and privileges."

Why should my taxpayer money go toward maintaining and facilitating the institution of legal marriage (regardless of how it is defined)?

:laugh:

Me being allowed to marry is not an infringement on your rights or privileges. Even if I marry, you still have the right (and privilege) to disagree, and to not be forced into marriage with another homosexual.

Now, I suppose you technically have a point with the tax issue. If you pay taxes, and those taxes are used to pay the salary of the fellow who is granting me a marriage license, then yes - your tax dollars are being used to support something that you may be opposed to on moral or religious grounds. However, this is an inevitable side effect of being a citizen in a nation funded by taxes. Why should my taxpayer money go toward:

War for profit.
The criminalization of drugs.
Capital Punishment, and in fact our entire American prison system.
Enforcing the requirement that we have drivers license to drive a car.
All oil/gas/corn/wheat/tobacco subsidies.
Any laws or obstacles restricting the free movement of people and animals around the planet.
The enforcement of anti-polygamy laws. (Yes, I support bigamous and polygamous marriages as well.)
Any local requirements to spay, neuter or register your pets.
Elected politicians receiving a salary, not only for doing their elected duty - but for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, one could argue that the taxes I pay are used to make up lost revenue from the tax credits that are given to married heterosexual couples.

I pay taxes that may or may not be used directly or indirectly for implementation or enforcement of any one of these purposes, despite being opposed to them for moral or spiritual reasons. It is the sacrifice I make for being an American citizen - all the money goes into the same pot and none of us gets to pick and choose what it is spent on.

Do you believe that opponents of marriage for gays should be granted an exception?

[TrueFaith77]

:laugh:

Me being allowed to marry is not an infringement on your rights or privileges. Even if I marry, you still have the right (and privilege) to disagree, and to not be forced into marriage with another homosexual.

Now, I suppose you technically have a point with the tax issue. If you pay taxes, and those taxes are used to pay the salary of the fellow who is granting me a marriage license, then yes - your tax dollars are being used to support something that you may be opposed to on moral or religious grounds. However, this is an inevitable side effect of being a citizen in a nation funded by taxes. Why should my taxpayer money go toward:

War for profit.
The criminalization of drugs.
Capital Punishment, and in fact our entire American prison system.
Enforcing the requirement that we have drivers license to drive a car.
All oil/gas/corn/wheat/tobacco subsidies.
Any laws or obstacles restricting the free movement of people and animals around the planet.
The enforcement of anti-polygamy laws. (Yes, I support bigamous and polygamous marriages as well.)
Any local requirements to spay, neuter or register your pets.
Elected politicians receiving a salary, not only for doing their elected duty - but for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, one could argue that the taxes I pay are used to make up lost revenue from the tax credits that are given to married heterosexual couples.

I pay taxes that may or may not be used directly or indirectly for implementation or enforcement of any one of these purposes, despite being opposed to them for moral or spiritual reasons. It is the sacrifice I make for being an American citizen - all the money goes into the same pot and none of us gets to pick and choose what it is spent on.

Do you believe that opponents of marriage for gays should be granted an exception?

I don't know what's so funny. You agree with me then. You agree--as I have said--as an American that all the money goes into the same pot and none us gets to pick and choose what it is spent on (except through voting for those who do choose). Consequently, currently, your preferences--civil marriage--is rammed down my throat (to use a common phrase about government impositions on our lives) and those of anti-gay marriage people are rammed down your throat and mine.

What I don't understand is why YOUR value system is Constitutional while those of anti-gay marriage people are not.



Furthermore, one could argue that the taxes I pay are used to make up lost revenue from the tax credits that are given to married heterosexual couples.

That's exactly what I was referring to... am I not speaking English? To be clear: I am against civil marriage for any and all people. And no solution would make your dream of multi-definitional marriage come true faster than joining me in calling for the end to all civil marriage. As Bruno Todeschini's character in the gay epic of modern times Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train (Patrice Chereau, 1999) said: "Our lives could be more inventive."

[KarmaContestant]

But since American gays (like most American consumers) tend to lack any intellectual or cultural curiosity (and most are also racist

:laugh:

Your statement is unfortunately and absolutely true of many - though not all of us.

[TrueFaith77]

:laugh:

Your statement is unfortunately and absolutely true of many - though not all of us.

I guarantee you have never seen a movie by Julian Hernandez, Andre Techine, Terence Davies, Patrice Chereau, Francois Ozon, Patrik Ian Polk, Martineau-Ducastel, and I could keep going--not just great contemporary gay filmmakers, but great filmmakers.

But you probably saw Brokeback Mountain.

[TrueFaith77]

For those interested, this is a list I made for a friend of mine (with whom I hadn't spoken in 10 years so it was a means of catching up):

20 Best Gay Films of the 21st Century
1. Raging Sun, Raging Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2009)
2. Broken Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2006)
3. The Witnesses (Andre Techine, 2008)
4. Son frere (Patrice Chereau, 2004)
5. A Thousand Clouds of Peace (Julian Hernandez, 2004)
6. Three Dancing Slaves (Gael Morel, 2005)
7. My Life On Ice (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, 2003)
8. Infamous (Douglas McGrath, 2006)
9. Garcon stupide (Lionel Baier, 2005)
10. Time To Leave (Francois Ozon, 2006)
11. Changing Times (Andre Techine, 2005)
12. Porn Theater (Jacques Nolot, 2003)
13. The Adventures of Felix (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, 2001)
14. Bear Cub (Miguel Albaladejo, 2004)
15. I Love You Philip Morris (Glenn Ficcarra & John Requa, 2010)
16. Of Time and the City (Terence Davies, 2009)
17. Father and Son (Aleksandr Sokurov, 2004)
18. Cote d’azur (Olivier Ducastel and Jacques Martineau, 2005)
19. Noah’s Arc: Jumping the Broom (Patrik-Ian Polk, 2008)
20. Circuit (Dirk Shafer, 2002)

NOTE: This list was made before the release of Patrik-Ian Polk's must-see The Skinny (2012) which is a real leap for him as an artist and for American gay cinema. So it would be up there somewhere.

NOTE: This list was also made before the release of Andre Techine's Unforgivable (2012) which is staggeringly great but also so radically redefines the very concepts of gay cinema and of identity politics that I'm not sure if it would even belong on this list... wow.

[KarmaContestant]

What I don't understand is why YOUR value system is Constitutional while those of anti-gay marriage people are not.

My value system grants liberties.

The values of anti-gay marriage people withholds liberties.

The Constitution always giveth - it never taketh away, based of course on prevailing social attitudes of the time. OK, OK - Dred Scott - but that did not last very long.

The public conscience on gays has shifted. The time has come for gays to have equal marriage rights. Ultimately, I believe the Constitution will be interpreted to support this. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it being possible.

[TrueFaith77]

My value system grants liberties.

The values of anti-gay marriage people withholds liberties.

The Constitution always giveth - it never taketh away, based of course on prevailing social attitudes of the time. OK, OK - Dred Scott - but that did not last very long.

The public conscience on gays has shifted. The time has come for gays to have equal marriage rights. Ultimately, I believe the Constitution will be interpreted to support this. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it being possible.

But you have a different definition of liberty. Why is yours better than mine (which says I shouldn't be forced to pay for ANYONE'S marriage) and anti-same sex folk (who feel they shouldn't have to pay for the impediment of man's soul)? Those are the points of view we all bring to the ballot box. Until the Supreme Court rules differently. And if you were right, then the Supreme Court would rule accordingly and/or the people would vote for politicians who would expand the definition of civil marriage. Though I still want civil marriage gone, I personally (just one vote) feel that it should include same-sex marriage if it simply must remain an institution.

[KarmaContestant]

I guarantee you have never seen a movie by Julian Hernandez, Andre Techine, Terence Davies, Patrice Chereau, Francois Ozon, Patrik Ian Polk, Martineau-Ducastel, and I could keep going--not just great contemporary gay filmmakers, but great filmmakers.

But you probably saw Brokeback Mountain.

I'm not a big movie watcher, to be honest. I might have seen some of their works, but I can't be certain without checking their entire filmography. I did watch I Love You Phillip Morris just last weekend.

I find TV and movies to largely be a waste of my time unkless they are teaching em something - I love documentaries; or maybe I just always have too much to do and find it hard to divert my attention from whatever is interesting me at the moment.

I did see Brokeback Mountain. :shrug: I think almost everyone has.

[michelle2677]

For those interested, this is a list I made for a friend of mine (with whom I hadn't spoken in 10 years so it was a means of catching up):

20 Best Gay Films of the 21st Century
1. Raging Sun, Raging Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2009)
2. Broken Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2006)
3. The Witnesses (Andre Techine, 2008)
4. Son frere (Patrice Chereau, 2004)
5. A Thousand Clouds of Peace (Julian Hernandez, 2004)
6. Three Dancing Slaves (Gael Morel, 2005)
7. My Life On Ice (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, 2003)
8. Infamous (Douglas McGrath, 2006)
9. Garcon stupide (Lionel Baier, 2005)
10. Time To Leave (Francois Ozon, 2006)
11. Changing Times (Andre Techine, 2005)
12. Porn Theater (Jacques Nolot, 2003)
13. The Adventures of Felix (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, 2001)
14. Bear Cub (Miguel Albaladejo, 2004)
15. I Love You Philip Morris (Glenn Ficcarra & John Requa, 2010)
16. Of Time and the City (Terence Davies, 2009)
17. Father and Son (Aleksandr Sokurov, 2004)
18. Cote d’azur (Olivier Ducastel and Jacques Martineau, 2005)
19. Noah’s Arc: Jumping the Broom (Patrik-Ian Polk, 2008)
20. Circuit (Dirk Shafer, 2002)



i'm straight and i haven't seen any of these movies. it has nothing to do with being gay or not gay, it's a personal preference. oh, and saying gay people have no culture is a hell of a stereotype. sh*t. :eek:

[TrueFaith77]

^^My point was obviously that most gay people are as stupid as most straight people. That's not a stereotype. That's like saying: Most gay people have two legs (not ALL do, I realize).

[michelle2677]

ok. so i don't understand what the point was, regarding your argument. are we derailing from the topic at hand or was there some cryptic message? :shrug:

[ButterCookie]

It's funny - sometimes I think I was taught about a different God at school. Because Catholic school taught me that God doesn't hate anyone. In fact, the God I was taught about is more likely to be upset by those who want to deny other humans basic rights than those who didn't do anything except try to love another person regardless of their gender.

People should stop using the Bible as a mask to hide their own personal bigotry behind.

[olive]

Madonna's Speech in St Petersburg Russia , where they threatened to arrest her if she said anything http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WPlBe_X6ETA/UCRJZDhuAdI/AAAAAAABleU/Y23vvN1i5lM/s1600/speech_501.jpg


By these guys



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qgh2OxzEGZc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[michelle2677]

It's funny - sometimes I think I was taught about a different God at school. Because Catholic school taught me that God doesn't hate anyone. In fact, the God I was taught about is more likely to be upset by those who want to deny other humans basic rights than those who didn't do anything except try to love another person regardless of their gender.

People should stop using the Bible as a mask to hide their own personal bigotry behind.

exactly what i was trying to say, earlier. there are lots of things i find offensive, but you don't see me out with my bible saying "jesus doesn't like you, so i'm forced to dislike you as well". all the while, sinning myself.

[TrueFaith77]

I agree that those people holding those signs are wrong and hate-filled and confused and stupid and maybe even crazy, but their search for meaning is a human impulse I cannot ridicule.

However, I think they are not only the minority in this country, but also the minority among those who oppose same-sex marriage.

The majority is likely Protestant/Evangelical. The Protestant and Enlightenment God is not the God of the Bible and the one true Catholic Church. It is an intellectual disaster that so many people conflate them--especially the so-called New Atheists who think they are arguing against true faith, when they are entering into a null discourse.

Anyway, so one must understand that all these arguments about Leviticus and the Law do not pertain to true Christianity. The Law--such as restrictions against, say, eating shellfish--served two (or three purposes): 1. To define the culture of a diasporic community 2. To serve as a sacrifice to God in the covenant (3. Shellfish might have been unhealthy/dangerous at the time and it was just good advice--I'm not an expert on this point; I do not know). However, through Jesus Christ and the sacraments (e.g., communion), there is a new Covenant, a new Community, and Jesus has taken on all the old sacrifices into his Crucifixion. In this way, he simultaneously revolutionizes and fulfills the scriptures. He makes all things new. Most famously, this is represented by the blood covenant of circumcision. St. Paul (Roman) and St. Peter (Jewish) debated whether or not circumcision was required for entry into the Christianity. Paul won this debate with the first Pope; circumcision was not required because Jesus on the cross offered the blood of the new Covenant. Consequently, all of the old law was open to reinvestigation in the light of Jesus: to be determined within the hierarchical structure of the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus himself founded. Therefore, there is no inherent hypocrisy in opposing gay marriage on Christian grounds while also happily eating shrimp.

So then why is homosexual sex a sin and gay marriage forbidden? To understand this, one must understand Biblical and Catholic conception of sexuality. Human sexuality, as we humans banished from the Garden experience it, is characterized by shame and concupiscence as a consequence of man's fallen nature. Marriage is a sacrament to contain and provide proper outlet (as expression of love) for fallen man’s sexuality. Unlike Puritanical strains of Christianity, sex is not inherently evil and it is not merely functional (for procreation) in Catholicism. However, gay sex and contraceptive sex (and sex out of wedlock) are sins because they lock out the possibility of procreation (or procreation outside of a relationship with God): which means they are done without hope, without faith in the future, without Love. In Catholicism, being gay is not a sin but gay sex is. However, sinners ought not be hated or demonized, but they should be encouraged away from sin, toward reconciliation, and, if not already baptized, evangelized. Consequently, many Catholics vote against same-sex civil marriage because you cannot actively encourage sin. Catholicism teaches compassion for the struggles of fallen man. It also, ideally, provides an outlet for fallen man. The Church assimilates gay people into the flock. History proves this: Just look at the gay men in the clergy, the lesbians among the sisters, the gay artists whose particularly affinities (and sensitivity and Difference) convey the spirit of the Church—and most radically offer in their aching beauty a tantalizing glimpse of Paradise, the chord of Desire that resonates in us all.

[ButterCookie]

I had a response typed up but y'know what, f* it. My eyes have gone funny with resentment and anger. I'm not arguing with people about this. I'm done here for a while.

[HomerMcvie]

I had a response typed up but y'know what, f* it. My eyes have gone funny with resentment and anger. I'm not arguing with people about this. I'm done here for a while.

Once a discussion really turns religious, I pretty much lose all interest in participating.

I don't know why anyone would want their neighbor to not have the same rights as them. Period.

If you feel this way(denial of equal rights), you're an a**hole.:lol:

[jannieC]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/JannieC/394372_440664445977936_686707107_n.jpg

[TrueFaith77]

^^Not one of those addresses the argument I summarized. Thank you for proving my point.

[jannieC]

^^Not one of those addresses the argument I summarized. Thank you for proving my point.

I had not read your post yet- found this and wanted to share. I can't imagine how this little flow chart proved your point, but I will go see!

[jannieC]

However, gay sex and contraceptive sex (and sex out of wedlock) are sins because they lock out the possibility of procreation (or procreation outside of a relationship with God): which means they are done without hope, without faith in the future, without Love.

How does this impact couples who are infertile?

[TrueFaith77]

How does this impact couples who are infertile?

That's what Henry VIII asked.

[jannieC]

That's what Henry VIII asked.

I understand the relationship btwn Henry VIII and "infertility" but don't get the "joke." My question was serious.

[TrueFaith77]

I agree that those people holding those signs are wrong and hate-filled and confused and stupid and maybe even crazy, but their search for meaning is a human impulse I cannot ridicule.

However, I think they are not only the minority in this country, but also the minority among those who oppose same-sex marriage.

The majority is likely Protestant/Evangelical. The Protestant and Enlightenment God is not the God of the Bible and the one true Catholic Church. It is an intellectual disaster that so many people conflate them--especially the so-called New Atheists who think they are arguing against true faith, when they are entering into a null discourse.

Anyway, so one must understand that all these arguments about Leviticus and the Law do not pertain to true Christianity. The Law--such as restrictions against, say, eating shellfish--served two (or three purposes): 1. To define the culture of a diasporic community 2. To serve as a sacrifice to God in the covenant (3. Shellfish might have been unhealthy/dangerous at the time and it was just good advice--I'm not an expert on this point; I do not know). However, through Jesus Christ and the sacraments (e.g., communion), there is a new Covenant, a new Community, and Jesus has taken on all the old sacrifices into his Crucifixion. In this way, he simultaneously revolutionizes and fulfills the scriptures. He makes all things new. Most famously, this is represented by the blood covenant of circumcision. St. Paul (Roman) and St. Peter (Jewish) debated whether or not circumcision was required for entry into the Christianity. Paul won this debate with the first Pope; circumcision was not required because Jesus on the cross offered the blood of the new Covenant. Consequently, all of the old law was open to reinvestigation in the light of Jesus: to be determined within the hierarchical structure of the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus himself founded. Therefore, there is no inherent hypocrisy in opposing gay marriage on Christian grounds while also happily eating shrimp.

So then why is homosexual sex a sin and gay marriage forbidden? To understand this, one must understand Biblical and Catholic conception of sexuality. Human sexuality, as we humans banished from the Garden experience it, is characterized by shame and concupiscence as a consequence of man's fallen nature. Marriage is a sacrament to contain and provide proper outlet (as expression of love) for fallen man’s sexuality. Unlike Puritanical strains of Christianity, sex is not inherently evil and it is not merely functional (for procreation) in Catholicism. However, gay sex and contraceptive sex (and sex out of wedlock) are sins because they lock out the possibility of procreation (or procreation outside of a relationship with God): which means they are done without hope, without faith in the future, without Love. In Catholicism, being gay is not a sin but gay sex is. However, sinners ought not be hated or demonized, but they should be encouraged away from sin, toward reconciliation, and, if not already baptized, evangelized. Consequently, many Catholics vote against same-sex civil marriage because you cannot actively encourage sin. Catholicism teaches compassion for the struggles of fallen man. It also, ideally, provides an outlet for fallen man. The Church assimilates gay people into the flock. History proves this: Just look at the gay men in the clergy, the lesbians among the sisters, the gay artists whose particularly affinities (and sensitivity and Difference) convey the spirit of the Church—and most radically offer in their aching beauty a tantalizing glimpse of Paradise, the chord of Desire that resonates in us all.

Pardon my brevity, but my point is not coming across. This is for what I pine:

The challenge for gay people is to make the BETTER argument. However, that argument must be based on shared values: hope, faith in the future, Love. Otherwise, the arguments are Puritanical. Otherwise the arguments are in terms of money, bureaucracy, functionality. Such arguments reduce man to cogs in a machine, rather than Christianity's revolutionary perspective of each man's dignity and spiritual value. I have offered my recommendations of "gay" movies and music in which I find those values. My call--and theirs--is that their inspiration be reflected in our political discourse.

[TrueFaith77]

I understand the relationship btwn Henry VIII and "infertility" but don't get the "joke." My question was serious.

Sir Thomas More answered your question when Henry VIII asked it.

[jannieC]

Sir Thomas More answered your question when Henry VIII asked it.

Sorry, my literary background doesn't go that far. I'm aware that Sir Thomas More was in some way connected to Henry VIII (advisor?) and was deeply religious. A Google search could tell me more, but I'm too tired to do one. Why don't you just answer the question in a direct way, without referring to a history lesson?

[TrueFaith77]

I reference More so that you know the answer is not mine. And was once common knowledge (A Man For All Seasons won all the Oscars that year!--back when the movies that won were not only good, but popular too!). His answer (and I paraphrase) was: "If God wills that a child be born of such a union, then a child will be born." In other words, there is still hope even in that situation. Remember, Catholics believe in miracles. Incidentally, More was executed for that answer.

[BombaySapphire3]

I reference More so that you know the answer is not mine. And was once common knowledge (The Man For All Seasons won all the Oscars that year!--back when the movies that won were not only good, but popular too!). His answer (and I paraphrase) was: "If God wills that a child be born of such a union, then a child will be born." In other words, there is still hope even in that situation. Remember, Catholics believe in miracles. Incidentally, More was executed for that answer.

I thought he was executed for refusing to acknowledge the marriage to Anne Boylene and to accept Henry VIII as the supreme head of the church in England:shrug:I will agree Thomas More was a great man and worthy of his sainthood.

[TrueFaith77]

I thought he was executed for refusing to acknowledge the marriage to Anne Boylene and to accept Henry VIII as the supreme head of the church in England:shrug:I will agree Thomas More was a great man and worthy of his sainthood.

He refused to argue for Henry VIII's divorce to the Pope. Henry VIII wanted a divorce because his wife was infertile. More refused to represent the King because he felt that infertility was not a basis for divorce, because if God wills that their union produce a son, it will. The Church of England was founded because the Pope would not permit Henry VIII to divorce and marry as many times as it took to produce a son. Either way: that was More's argument: that no child or no son was not grounds for divorce because God would provide (if it was needed).

[APerfectLie]

I reference More so that you know the answer is not mine. And was once common knowledge (A Man For All Seasons won all the Oscars that year!--back when the movies that won were not only good, but popular too!). His answer (and I paraphrase) was: "If God wills that a child be born of such a union, then a child will be born." In other words, there is still hope even in that situation. Remember, Catholics believe in miracles. Incidentally, More was executed for that answer.

Therefore, if God wills a child to be born from two men, then a child will be born.

[jannieC]

Therefore, if God wills a child to be born from two men, then a child will be born.

HA! Two men had equal odds at getting pregnant as I did- that's for sure!

[Fireflies]

blah blah blah blah.

you're gay, are you not?

it's apparent to me that you've had serious issues accepting your lifestyle, and you've compensated by developing an extreme inferiority complex. in the words of alfred adler:

"An inferiority complex is when "the feeling of inferiority is highly intensified to the degree that the child believes that he will never be able to compensate for his weakness".

for whatever reason, it's easy to assume that you've chosen to see your lifestyle as "weakness", and you "compensate" through dogmatic adoption and self-denial. :shrug:

[BombaySapphire3]

you're gay, are you not?

it's apparent to me that you've had serious issues accepting your lifestyle, and you've compensated by developing an extreme inferiority complex. in the words of alfred adler:

"An inferiority complex is when "the feeling of inferiority is highly intensified to the degree that the child believes that he will never be able to compensate for his weakness".

for whatever reason, it's easy to assume that you've chosen to see your lifestyle as "weakness", and you "compensate" through dogmatic adoption and self-denial. :shrug:

Uh..if he is living strictly by Catholic teaching then he is not living a "gay" lifestyle.Same sex orientation would not be considerd in itself a sin but acting on it in any way would be .That would include being completely chaste in every sense.If it works for someone then I can't really criticize them.It is not an easy road for most as the sex drive is a very powerful thing.This is evidenced by the endless sex scandals among the Catholic clergy.

[TrueFaith77]

you're gay, are you not?

it's apparent to me that you've had serious issues accepting your lifestyle, and you've compensated by developing an extreme inferiority complex. in the words of alfred adler:

"An inferiority complex is when "the feeling of inferiority is highly intensified to the degree that the child believes that he will never be able to compensate for his weakness".

for whatever reason, it's easy to assume that you've chosen to see your lifestyle as "weakness", and you "compensate" through dogmatic adoption and self-denial. :shrug:

When I was in school, I was taught to be able to summarize other people's perspectives, to make their arguments for them--if even to dismantle them: whether it was Marx, Freud, Nietzche, Baldwin, or St. Paul. You reduce that effort to blah blah blah blah and y'all now think you just have to recycle lame arguments (shellfish! two men can have babies!) without having to actually think and understand and analyze because you think that you are so brilliant that this "hole" you have found is somehow utterly destructive (as if these things were not things that 2000 years of theology had considered--it's ludicrous). Nobody who lists the films I listed has a "problem" with this lifestyle. I only have a problem with stupid people.

[Fireflies]

I only have a problem with stupid people.

and those who support same-sex marriage are stupid?

[TrueFaith77]

and those who support same-sex marriage are stupid?

Are you not reading what I've written on here? I've recommended films by brilliant (i.e., NOT STUPID) gay artists who support gay marriage.

All I've asked for is the political discourse of those who do support gay marriage to make the better argument; even if it is right, even if it becomes law, it cannot win without making the better argument. And to not be bigoted towards those who disagree--not all who disagree are bigots!

I point to my post here which reflects this call: http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=1061270&postcount=130


The arguments I see on here in favor of gay marriage come from a Puritanical p.o.v. Instead, I ask for the arguments in our political discourse to reflect the values of "hope, faith in the future, Love." I have attempted to reconcile those values with gay desire. I even wrote a book about this! And it's pretty much the gayest-with-abandon book ever written. The majority of the articles were written for a gay porn website (badpuppy!), fercryingoutloud. http://communityofdesire.wordpress.com/ (incidentally I don't make even 1 penny of profit off the sales of my book--all profit goes directly to the printer and distributer lulu).

[Fireflies]

Are you not reading what I've written on here? I've recommended films by brilliant (i.e., NOT STUPID) gay artists who support gay marriage.

All I've asked for is the political discourse of those who do support gay marriage to make the better argument; even if it is right, even if it becomes law, it cannot win without making the better argument. And to not be bigoted towards those who disagree--not all who disagree are bigots!

I point to my post here which reflects this call: http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=1061270&postcount=130


The arguments I see on here in favor of gay marriage come from a Puritanical p.o.v. Instead, I ask for the arguments in our political discourse to reflect the values of "hope, faith in the future, Love." I have attempted to reconcile those values with gay desire. I even wrote a book about this! And it's pretty much the gayest-with-abandon book ever written. The majority of the articles were written for a gay porn website (badpuppy!), fercryingoutloud. http://communityofdesire.wordpress.com/ (incidentally I don't make even 1 penny of profit off the sales of my book--all profit goes directly to the printer and distributer lulu).


wewpz, missed that. however--i don't think using religious sources makes for a "better" argument. :shrug: religion has no place in policy.

but hey, as long as you support-gay marriage, whatever stance works for you also works for me. :D

[APerfectLie]

When I was in school, I was taught to be able to summarize other people's perspectives, to make their arguments for them--if even to dismantle them: whether it was Marx, Freud, Nietzche, Baldwin, or St. Paul. You reduce that effort to blah blah blah blah and y'all now think you just have to recycle lame arguments (shellfish! two men can have babies!) without having to actually think and understand and analyze because you think that you are so brilliant that this "hole" you have found is somehow utterly destructive (as if these things were not things that 2000 years of theology had considered--it's ludicrous). Nobody who lists the films I listed has a "problem" with this lifestyle. I only have a problem with stupid people.

So it is a "lame argument" to say that two men can have children, but it is completely acceptable for you to defend your argument with the fact that God could make an infertile couple produce a child if he wanted? You cannot have it both ways. Either God is all powerful and he can make men have children too, or he isn't and your religion crumbles. Now I am not a religious person so I feel arguing these matters in religious circumstances is absurd. However, you chose to do so. You chose to base your argument on a set of religious beliefs that cannot be proved because religion is fundamentally FAITH based. Ergo, for one to make the "better" argument against religion, one must point out the holes and flaws in those beliefs. Only then to have our arguments relegated as "lame." Why exactly is that a lame argument? And why exactly should homosexuals have to have a "better" argument? Are we going to refuse rights to mentally challenged people until they come up with a "better argument" as to why they should have rights? Here is my argument on hope, faith in the future, and love: It doesn't matter what religion you are, what race you are, who you sleep with, what you believe to be true, or what you do; anyone and everyone should be entitled to have the freedom to live their lives as they please without impeding the the rights or freedoms of others. If two men want to get married, let them! If someone wants to be Christian and someone wants to be atheist, let them! The only thing people should not be allowed to do is to remove those rights from others. People can believe homosexuality is wrong and they can choose not to partake in it, but they shouldn't be able to stop others. People can believe Jews are inferior, but that does not allow them to murder them. By allowing everyone to live their lives they way they please, we end all the arguments. We move from a culture of choosing sides and fighting over who is right, into a culture where we support all sides and stand on the side of freedom. Where we all have different beliefs, but we aren't forced into becoming enemies because of an unnecessary need for someone to be right. We can love each other and have hope for a better future. For less war, less angst and anger, more peace. Our future can be spent working on bigger and better things other than bickering over trivial things that neither side will ever reconcile. We can have faith that our future will be brighter than our present. Our population has grown extremely quick, so a decreased rate of growth will actually be very beneficial! By living our lives this way we all stand up for ourselves and our own rights, but we also stand up for everybody else, because by supporting your freedom of religion and speech, you also support the freedom of gay marriage.

[jannieC]

When I was in school, I was taught to be able to summarize other people's perspectives, to make their arguments for them--if even to dismantle them: whether it was Marx, Freud, Nietzche, Baldwin, or St. Paul. You reduce that effort to blah blah blah blah and y'all now think you just have to recycle lame arguments (shellfish! two men can have babies!) without having to actually think and understand and analyze because you think that you are so brilliant that this "hole" you have found is somehow utterly destructive (as if these things were not things that 2000 years of theology had considered--it's ludicrous). Nobody who lists the films I listed has a "problem" with this lifestyle. I only have a problem with stupid people.

I can assure you that when my husband and I were struggling with infertility, people telling us to pray for a miracle, or "Sarah had her baby when she was 90!" was no joke. I realize I am swerving off topic, but the "miracle" in my story is the way my daughter was brought to me. Not that God saw fit to re-grow my fallopian tubes.

I am formally educated (masters level), though not in theology. So while I consider myself somewhat intelligent, I don't claim to be above average and I am struggling with understanding your viewpoint. Maybe you could "dumb it down" for me? You want a <i>better</i> argument supporting same sex marriage than what you're seeing here, in this forum? Meaning, better than the shellfish/infertility stuff? You mentioned, " hope, faith in the future, Love." Procreation is not the only way a loving, committed couple can express faith and hope in the future. There will always be plenty of heterosexuals around, reproducing. My hope for the future is that anyone (heterosexual and homosexual) can be in a loving, committed, and legal relationship. To be allowed to raise their children with love and hope. I'm not sure what more there is. Why isn't that enough?

[HejiraNYC]

I am formally educated (masters level), though not in theology. So while I consider myself somewhat intelligent, I don't claim to be above average and I am struggling with understanding your viewpoint. Maybe you could "dumb it down" for me?

Be careful what you ask, because you just might get it. But then again, in this case, maybe not. :lol: Instead you are likely to get more ad hominem attacks about your intelligence (the first sign of a very poor debater) or some inane correlation between intellectual capacity and obscure art films. :lol: The fact is that he has no point and cannot make arguments rooted in fact. Or, at best, he is simply incapable of articulating a cogent argument that deals with the issue at hand. I can think of better ways of using your time- like trimming your fingernails or plucking the pills off of an old sweater, than trying to distill the meaning from so much meaningless text.