Chick-Fil-A and their alleged discrimination.
Context reference:
http://money.msn.com/business-news/arti … =ansmony11
I am curious as to what my fellow Hubbers think of Chick-Fil-A.
I personally believe that as our country is founded on the principles of FREEDOM (of religion, of speech, of choice, etc.) that Chick-Fil-A is well within their rights to operate under Christian beliefs.
They do not discriminate against people. When you walk in the door, you are not screened as to whether your are homosexual, or Christian, or whatever. You order food, they serve you, and you eat it.
Their business operates under Christian beliefs. They are not open on Sundays, and they say "Have a blessed day" when you take your order. That, to me, is okay. I am not Christian, but I do not have a problem with that. I actually think it is great that they are closed on Sundays; having a guarenteed day off in the service industry is very rare.
I also think it is noble of them to stand by their beliefs. All that CEO Cathy said was that he supports the Bible's view of a traditional family. And that's okay, I think. I believe that we are all free to support whomever and whatever we want. He donated money to causes that defend traditional marriage, and that is okay by me. It's his money. I think it is noble to stand up for your beliefs, even under pressure from the media. That is more than most people can take credit for!
My personal beliefs are that the LGBTQ community is acting way too butt-hurt over Cathy's donation of money to causes that are against same-sex marriage. As I have already said, I believe that it is within your rights as an American citizen to support what you want, believe what you want, and invest in what you want with your own money.
Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate. They adhere to EEO laws. And they operate under Christian ideals with nothing but good intentions; they do not intend to (and don't) discriminate against LGBTQ people by following Christian beliefs. They certainly do not intend to offend anyone by being closed on Sundays and saying "have a blessed day." (anyone who gets offended by someone saying "bless you" is beyond me).
In my opinion, boycotting a business (INTENTIONALLY HURTING) simply because they follow Christian beliefs is discrimination.
What do you think?Oh, I don't know. Christian groups are constantly calling for boycotts against companies they think go against their beliefs.
One of the big problems I see in today's America is the demonizing of people whom others view as being politically incorrect (aka not agreeing with what they think is right). I may not agree with other people's views, but I will defend to the death their right to have them and speak out about them. This is America. If we believe in something, we have the right to support it financially and any other way. From what I've heard, this company has done absolutely nothing to discriminate against anybody...yet people are calling for boycotts, etc. All they've done is state their views and have donated to groups who support them. Where is the problem in this?
I agree. We would be amazed if we knew how many companies support that which they believe is worthwhile and right. The only reason this is "news" is because it is a business that is run on Christian values and beliefs. Chic-Fil-A has the right to support or not to support what they choose. I notice no one is talking about the Winshape Foundation or the fact that this company puts orphaned children in homes and sends many others to college. Nor is there any mention of the fact that the company hires young students and trains them in the restaurant business and offers a scholarship to many of them. They are teaching our youth how to show respect to other people which is sadly something rarely found in the youth of today. The good this company does far outweighs the negative press because of their Biblical beliefs. So, yes Chic-Fil-A may be a chicken business but they are a company that benefits this nation beyond what the press or those that oppose their beliefs will ever admit.
I think it is news not because the CEO is a Christian, but because he is taking a stand against allowing freedoms and rights to one particular group of people who have been fighting for that right for some time. Gay marriage is a very timely and newsworthy topic and has been for the last few years, in particular.
Notice that Target has been in the news, also, for offering same-sex wedding gift registry. It works both ways, wheher you're for it or against it. It is currently a hot topic and newsworthy. Of course the Chick Fil-A CEO has a right to express his opinions, just as Target can offer wedding registry to whomever they like. Both companies' actions will no doubt help them gain some business and also cause them to lose some business.
It's not about "hurting" a business simply because they follow Christian beliefs. It's about the right of the consumer to not spend money at a business that donates money to organizations that the consumer doesn't agree with. If there was a chick fil a in my area I would not spend my money there.
Since when is discriminating against gays count as 'operating under Christian beliefs' and yes, they are discriminating, they donate millions to anti-gay groups to promote the continuation of discrimination. If an organization starts giving money to the KKK and promoting white supremacist groups are they 'well within their rights' just because they don't turn away African-Americans at the door?
Honestly I really don't care if an individual human being is opposed to gay marriage, they are entitled to their opinion even if I disagree with it... but a corporation which is donating money to prevent gays from gaining equal rights, that's a different situation. And what about everyone that works there? Surely this opinion isn't held by all their employees and certainly not by all their customers... but then the Supreme Court has - STUPIDLY - ruled that corporations are people ...Why is people running around telling everyone what kind of sex they like. Who cares. You ain't in bed with me.
I think everyone should keep it to themselves. There is always gay dudes hanging out at a park near my town. They just hook up with whoever wants to roll that way. About once a week, some poor fool walks in on some wild action. What's up with that?
Ha ha ha, I just got it. Tighten skull . . . like tighten your head. Whatever's clever!Agree Bubba Who cares who sleeps with who? While marriage is a right, that rights needs defining or else cousins can marry cousins or a man can have a harem. It can apply to other things. I have a right to drink but should i drink and drive. Heck no.
What other rigtht requires a license? Why is marriage a right? Anyone can get married, the government does not ask about your sexuality before you get married. The only things that stop someone from marrying 1) already being married 2) being immediately genetically related 3) defrauding the government, ie immigration fraud
Carrying a handgun requires a license, voting requires a registration card, holding a job requires a social security card.
Voting is not a right. Employment is also, not a right. The right to keep and bare arms then is being infringed by gun laws and they need to be over turned.
I agree, they are certainly within their rights to donate to whatever cause they wish, but those who don't agree with that are also within their rights to raise a stink about it, organize a boycott, etc.
I find it ironic that Christian groups organize boycotts all the time of companies they claim are anti-family, anti-Christian, or whatever, but when the LGBT community and their supporters (such as me) raise a stink about it, we're acting "butthurt." Shoe's on the other hand, now, isn't it?Boycotting a company (denying it your business and your money) because that company/owner then spends HER money, which by virtue of her earning it via your business is symbolically YOUR money, supporting discrimination (whatever its form or, 'scuse me!, "Form" - be it white-hooded genetic freaks, or the air-crossing, 1/7 pious hypocrites who preach love thy neighbor, and then try to hurt them - is not only anything BUT discrimination, it is speaking out AGAINST discrimination with more guts and integrity than is had by ANYONE who dons a pious mask, yet relishes the religious excuse to give in to their neurotic biases.
You make the claim that Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate but unfortunately this is proving not to be true. A little homework turns up lots of instances of them discriminating against employees and franchise owners who do not practice Christianity or otherwise do not practice it in the right manner. For instance:
"In 2002, Houston restaurant manager Aziz Latif allegedly was fired the day after he declined to take part in a prayer to Jesus during a training program. He sued Chick-fil-A for discrimination and reached a settlement whose terms have not been made public. "
Chick-Fil-A is protected under the first amendment and Chicago and Boston are wrong for trying to remove this right of free speech. However this company does discriminate on the basis of religion.
Personally, I see it as their right. If I don't like it I don't have to eat there or work there. And I won't because I disagree with Christians on many things including gay marriage. But this is not the world we live in, is it.
No, we need government rules and laws for every little thing because apparently we, as a society, cannot handle our own affairs. So people cannot be fired or otherwise discriminated against based on religion. Google will show you that this has happened, more than once.
I don't think this is the Christianity Jesus envisioned, no more than this is a country Jefferson envisioned.
And the freedom to not give our money to people who donate to causes we oppose.Which would, after all, be like donating to them yourself.
But many people are saying they are not operating within their rights, and discriminating with their business. I take it you do not agree with that?
What people? All I have seen is a call for a boycott based on donations made in the name of the company (not just by it's owners) to groups that oppose marriage equality.
I would not assume they actively discriminate without evidence to that effect. I think the boycott relates to the donations, although some people might harbor suspicions and like to speculate that is not the core issue or objection. Being anti gay marriage and anti-gay is part of their brand, and that was their choice.
Nor is this really new. I have never gone to this restaurant because of the donations they make under this brand on this issue. Plenty of other junk food around, including those who have very active charitable foundations-- and are more progressive on animal welfare issues.As within the link on the opening post:
"A Chicago alderman vowed to block a Chick-fil-A proposed in his district, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel supported him, saying, "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wrote in a letter to Cathy: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.""I recall a stink about a mosque opening a while back here in Tennessee. Wasn't that religious discrimination? What if you found out your favorite place donated to the cause? If you keep boycotting a businesses because they donate to cause you don't like no business could operate.
- Teresa Higginsposted 12 years ago
0I agree with the original poster, Chik Fil A CEO is well within his rights to say he supports the biblical definition of marriage, I agree with him, I am in a biblical marriage myself. My husband married to me and only me, me married to him and only him, until death separates us, hopefully not until we are very, very old. It is okay for other company's CEOs to publicly say they support gay and lesbian marriage. They can support whatever they choose. They can invest in programs that work with gay and lesbian couples if they wish.
The public can eat at Chik Fil A or not if they choose. I don't believe it will hurt Chik Fil A in the long run, but people will make their statements anyway. For the last 44 years they have posted positive gains in sales, never have they posted a loss. I don't see them going under any time soon.
I really hope the ACLU decides to represent Chik Fil A to defend their constitutional rights. Cities choosing to block them from setting up business are discriminating against them based on religious and moral reasons. That's religious discrimination.
I have eaten at Chik Fil A many, many times. I love the food, I love the atmosphere, I love everything the business stands for. I am a Christian and I believe the biblical definition of marriage is exactly what God intended for marriage to be. I don't have to defend that belief, and no one else has to believe it if they don't want to.I'm in a Biblical marriage too: I married my daughters, and the woman I raped.
(J/K: I have no daughters, and I haven't raped anyone. Just making a point.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
For gay people it is not so simple, it is group paying big money to curtail their human rights. So I understand the outrage. Boycotts and civil rights have always gone together.
This.
I'd rather give my hard-earned money to a business or charity that isn't going to turn around and use my money to support groups and laws making life difficult for my family and loved ones.
I am a customer. I'm voting with my feet, and I'm not setting foot in Chik-fil-a.
This is also American, strangely enough.psycheskinner: I understand this, but it is the right of any American to support his views, whether or not we agree with or like them. The Gay community also spends big money to fight those who are trying to undermine them, so it's not like some giant is going around bashing some innocent little, unarmed kid. Chick Fil A has just as much right to support its views as the GLBT people.
If marriage is a human right why does it require a license and a ceremony? What other right requires such things.
- Emile Rposted 12 years ago0
The question is, why does Chickfila think we give a hoot what they think about homosexuality? Their opinion on the best seasoning for chicken is the only one that matters to me.
Stay in the kitchen, make me a chicken sandwich. That's what they are there for.Obviously people do give a hoot or this discussion would not be taking place.
My point is that Chick-fil-A doesn't care. And that's what people care about. They are supporting a Christian way of life, and they are proud of that. LGBTQ community and it's supporters "but that goes against our view of what's right! Don't you care? Boycott!"
Chick-fil-A is well within their rights to express their opinions. You yourself have over FIVE THOUSAND posts on HubPages forums; clearly you understand the right to express opinions.
I appreciate everyone's replies here, especially from the newer users like myself. It has shed a lot of light on why people dislike Chick-fil-A, but at the same time gives more to solidify my original opinion as so:
They are well within their rights as AMERICANS to believe what they want and spend their money how they choose.There was an excerpt from an interview with Dan Cathy, CEO of Chik Fil A, a very successful business. He has always been open and honest about his faith and has run his business with that faith in mind. Chik Fil A has always been closed on Sunday because Sunday is for family and faith.
(I worked for a Muslim business man who NEVER schedueld his Christian employees for Sunday because he was dedicated to his faith and believed we were, too.)
Once the interview qoute was out the pro-gay-"marriage" public relations mechanism started to work. Then government respresentatives in Chicago decided to oppose zoning a new CFA restaurant based on the personal opinion of its CEO. That sounds like a violation of the 1st Amendment to me.
If they sue, win and put a restaurant in that location, I would be curious to see what effect the CEO's views have on that particular restaurant. It could be that nobody cares or their chicken is enough to make people forgive and forget, or it could be that their views have a negative effect on the restaurant's bottom line.
Here in the Bible belt, this type of controversy could very well help business. I know people who would drive out of their way to go there just to make a statement (although I also know some who would stay away to make a different statement). In more progressive areas of the nation, it could hurt them badly, I would think.
Just as it is the company CEO's right to state his beliefs, it is my right not to spend my money at his restaurants. As far as it being religious discrimination to block them from opening a restaurant, Teresa Higgins may be on to something. I'm not a lawyer, however. Anyone know?Boycotts can be effective. I agree with Chik-Fil-A. So buy more chicken from them!
Consumers have their own options just like Chick Fil A mgmt. has a right to voice opinion! Only the other one is a consumer the one is a provider, so the latter lost it!
- Arlene V. Pomaposted 12 years ago0
The nearest Chick-Fil-A is about 10 minutes from my home. I wasn't too impressed with the food when it first opened, and haven't gone there since. The only thing I remembered about management was that they closed on Sundays so everyone could spend time with family or go to church. That was different. They can do what the want. I don't care. If they are in the business of selling chicken, they should stick to that. You aren't forgiven that easily when you are someone in the public eye who puts his foot in his mouth. Stick to selling that chicken!
I love a good chicken sandwich with pickles. I remember when they first came out. I must have eat five of them. I don't see nothing wrong with a man speaking his mind whether I like what he says or not. The sandwich is still good, right?
Let me ask you this? If I don't like gay marriage and you speak out against people who don't like gay marriage, should I boycott your coffee shop? If I want a latte, I'll come in anyway.And that is your choice. It's a little more than just the CEO's opinion though. When it became known that they donate money to organizations that are against gays and gay marriage it becomes a matter of the consumer actively supporting it with their money. If you love the food so much and don't care that strongly about where the money goes then again, it's your choice to continue eating there and supporting them.
Some folks just don't care for unnatural acts.
The unnatural acts being Chick Fil A's using profits to abuse and disregard the emotional well being of total strangers by making public announcements that have nothing to do with frying chicken for resale? Or were you referring to something else?
Here's what my Gramma taught me when the kids at school called me fatso, "Sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you." A man can spend his money however he wants. He just wants to keep things wholesome, that's all.
Now there is a war on obesity . . . that hurts!I'll be honest. Living by your beliefs is an admirable trait. Going out of your way to shove your beliefs into the public arena is not.
It's like when the Dixie Chicks went off about Bush on stage. Yes, that was freedom of speech, however I don't think anyone would pay to sit around and listen to them rant about politics. They are singers, nothing more. They serve no other purpose than to entertain when they are on stage and they needed to learn that.
It is the same with this CEO. He can stand up in church and say what he wants about it. He can do it at his club. But he is not in the public eye because we asked for his opinion. He just refuses to let it go. I realize he thinks hate mongering will push sales, which it probably does; but he is a restaurateur, not a preacher or a politician. Someone needs to explain to him what the scope of work is for a CEO.
“This church helped me raise a family and has brought great joy and happiness to my life,” he told me. But that didn’t mean gay employees had any less status at Marriott. “We have to take care of our people, regardless of their sexual orientation or anything else,” he said. “We are an American Church. We have all the American values: the values of hard work, the values of integrity, the values of fairness and respect.” Marriott has both a deep faith and a deep understanding of his responsibility as a leader. Many of his shareholders, customers, and employees don’t belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their values matter, too.
“Our church is very much opposed to alcohol and we’re probably one of the biggest sales engines of liquor in the United States. I don’t drink. We serve a lot of liquor. You’re in business. You’ve got to make money,” he said. “We have to appeal to the masses out there, no matter what their beliefs are.”
The problem is that he crossed the line in letting his faith become less about inspiration than alienation. Not only did he openly condemn the beliefs of a big chunk of Chick-fil-A’s audience, he implied that their views are unpatriotic and even put the country at risk.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 … m-marriottIt was a hate message that was directed toward gays and lesbians, period. You can attack all and anyone you want to with nasty words and evil symbolic actions, but you cannot whine enough to make the consequences for your actions just go away.
I hope that Chick whatever takes a deep financial hit.
I have no use for that business and will continue to not give them my money. That makes me kind of neutral.
I did appreciate someone's Kentucky Fried Chicken ad that went something like this: "We serve our Chicken without the hate."
KFC will get my money.How, might I ask, is someone stating "I support traditional marriage" directed towareds gays and lesbians? It seems that it was directed towards the Church, and he was assessing his support in that community.
Now, if he said "Gays are sinners" then I would agree with you. But I don't. He is Christian, and that's fine.
I've chosen to hear as little about this as possible. From what I have heard, I "believe" he as CEO has spoken for Chik-fil-a. If people chose to demonstrate against what he, as a representative for Chik-fil-a, said then they have just as much "right" to do so as he had to say what he said.
My "belief" on the matter is as follows:
I have no qualms with whatever our countrymen, GLBT or S, chose to make as law, as long as it applies to all. I have no qualms with whichever route is decided upon with marriage, as long as it applies to all. I do believe that if equality is something that our country (The United States of America) is founded upon and continue to take pride in, we cannot afford different "rights" to different demographics. That, in itself, IS unconstitutional. If federal or state officials (those that we chose to put into "power") chose to not abide by a constitutional right, then they should answer for it. It is NOT their decision to force personal beliefs onto any of us - again, unconstitutional.
However, as CEO of Chik-fil-a, he is not someone that we've put into power - other than buying product(s) from that particular establishment. I/you/we/they can chose (constitutionally) to not buy anything from that establishment ever again. But that is our choice.
My "opinion" ... I don't even really like Chik-fil-a's food. Their best food, that I've eaten, was the potatoes and they were mediocre at best.
Lastly, I don't hate him for what was said; he has the right. Even if he hates others, it is his right to say whatever he'd like. He has the same rights as you and I, as Americans.I think they have a right to freedom of speech. I love their food. They have Christian beliefs which is why they are not open on Sundays. Money is not their biggest concern. I respect that. I will continue to support them because their food is good and because I think they have a right to say anything they want.
It seems lately that the only way you can speak out with an opinion about GBLT/traditional marriage is if you are speaking in opposition to traditional marriage. Then its okay...its all freedom of speech and love. But the second you stand up and say...I agree with the values of a traditional marriage, I believe that a marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman...then all of a sudden you are close-minded and discriminating against someone else. I guess you are only allowed to believe what society tells you should be the norm? I commend Chick Fil A on the fact that they stood and said "this is what we believe". They aren't saying if you are homosexual they won't serve you or won't hire you. They are saying that they personally support traditional marriage.
It is. You are perfectly allowed to say you are against two men or two women being married. But...when you try to stop them from getting married that is when you go over the line...
Yes, I believe it is a civil rights issue. If churches choose not to marry same-sex couples, so be it. Churches have the right to their own definition of marriage. But when it comes to a government of the people, by the people, for the people, etc., that is supposedly not tied to a specific religion, they need to offer the right to marry to all couples. At the government level it should have nothing to do with religion. Some day we will look back and be shocked that same-sex couples were at one point not allowed to marry, just as now we look back and are shocked that at one time in history women were not allowed to vote and African Americans were not allowed to do much of anything.
However, the Chick Fil-A guy has the right to his opinion, and I have the right to take my business elsewhere, as has already been discussed.SmartandFun, I am with you on this one. Why the histrionics over same sex marriage? Marriage is for love and it does not matter if the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. Let us progress from such atavistic thinking. Let's move on there are more pressing issues such as domestic abuse, poverty, and homelessness! These are the issues which should be addressed and attacked for its egregiousness, not the issue of same sex marriage!
Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if violence, poverty, homelessness, hunger and mental illness were things of the past?
If is of the people, by the people, and for the people, then you need to recognize that a lot of "the people" are not for gay marriage (and other things, as well).
And for the record, I am *not* Christian and I am *not* against gay marriage. I am simply against people trying to harm a business because the person who owns it and makes money from it happens to disagree with them. My personal beliefs are that MARRIAGE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LAW. Marriage, whether gay, straight, Church, or courthouse (well...) should not give you any sort of legal up-hand in comparison to people who aren't married. That's where this gay-rights thing all began; gay couples wanting the same LEGAL RIGHTS as straight couples. I don't think marriage should be a legal thing. If two people want to get married, they can do so in their own little ceremony. And they can sign a paper that determines their significant other to be their primary beneficiary. And that would be fine.That sounds wonderful, but it isn't simply a matter of benefiting in death and living together. Insurance companies have to allow your partner coverage on family plans. Hospitals have to recognize same sex partners. Tax law needs to reflect that people are married. Club memberships need to recognize families of every shape.
You can't change the whole system top to bottom. It's much easier to simply allow people in love the same rights we afford heterosexuals.A lot "of the people" wanted to keep women away from the polls and wanted to keep African Americans in their own segregated schools and at the back of the bus, but that did not make it OK. Eventually, who is against gay marriage and who is for it won't matter, becasuse it will be decided upon by the Supreme Court. One day the Supreme Court will rule that denying marriage to same-sex couples is denying these Americans a basic right based upon their sexual preference, and that it is discrimination. This will happen. Even the Supreme Court Justices who are against gay marriage per their religious beliefs will come to the philosophical and intellectual conclusion that keeping same-sex couples from marrying is discrimination. It will happen. I don't know when, but it is a matter of time. The churches can still have their one-woman-one-man marriages, but anyone who wants to will be able to marry at our courthouses.
And still, the Chik-Fil-A guy will be allowed to voice his opinion and consumers will be allowed to spend their money where they choose.Many of "the people" want to lower the drinking age, but that doesn't mean anything, either. At one point "the people" wanted to make alcohol illegal, too.
Is that a fact?
Sounds like a hypothesis to me.
@ uninvited writer- I guess I didn't realize that Chick Fil A had the powe to stop two people from being married. That isn't what this was about. Yes in the grand scheme of things it goes back to legalizing gay marriage...but Chick Fil A has no part in that . The owners simply said that THEY support the traditional marriage. They have no power over whether or not gay marriage is or isn't legalized. My point is that...the second you say that you are against same sex marriage people tend to start attacking. Its as though people are saying "you can believe what you want as long as you agree with me". Unfortunately there are many people that DO NOT support same sex marriage.
The saddest part of it all is that we have children who are starving and being abused and neglected in our own country, public education is circling the drain, and as a society we manage to fight about something like this. Whether two people can marry or not. Seems we, as a country have much bigger fish to fry.They are donating money to stop gays from being allowed to be married. That is the story...
And again, people can be against it but they have no right to stop it...
The big deal is being made by those opposed to same sex marriage and using the law to prevent it. If people just let gays get married they could move on to the more serious problems in the world. But too many of them are hung up on this and not allowing women to make their own health decisions.They are donating money to a cause that they believe in. If people doen't support it they don't have to go to Chick Fil A. As someone mentioned earlier...I think that we as patrons of these establishments would be surprised and what aroganizations the CEO's of these companies donate money to. Unfortunately, you don't walk into McDonalds and say "I'd like a Big Mac and oh by the way...could you please give me a list of all of the organizations the McDonalds donates money to." That is a chance that you take when you spend money ANYWHERE. Once you buy your chicken sandwich and that money is no longer yours it really isn't up to us what they do with that money. If people feel personally offended that Chick Fil A is giving money to a cause that they don't support then they should choose to go somewhere else. Discrimination would be the refusal of service or jobs to people based on the sexual preference. They aren't doing that. What they are doing isn't criminal.
That is different than saying people are calling for a boycott just because he stated his opinion. I agree, if you don't agree go somewhere else...that is what a boycott is. I felt the same way when numerous anti-gay groups called for a boycott of JC Penney for hiring Ellen Degeneris as a spokesperson.
It doesn't matter how much money anyone donates to anything. It all comes down to a vote in this country.
These causes they are donating to probably do stuff like make signs, put out ads, etc. all giving reasons why gay marriage is bad. They aren't making rules for people, they are giving people cause to jump on one boat or the other. Just open your eyes and look at all the anti-this, pro-that crap about every issue, and you'll see why this is the same (Who cares? These organizations don't have the power to stop gays from marrying. They lobby against it. Only the government has the power).Univitied writer, others are donating money to support gay marriage and try to make it legal, guess they should not be allowed to do so either if chik fil a can't donate money to oppose it.
Well said. This country is founded on freedom and the right to support or oppose is a part of that freedom. Chic-Fil-A and any other company has the right to do the same.
I don't think anyone is saying they can't donate money to a cause they support. The point is, many people find that cause hateful, and are encouraging a boycott. Christian groups, for example, have urged boycotts of Apple and Disney, to name but a few, because they offer benefits to same-sex partners.
Hateful is over the top and perhaps that is where the real argument lies.
That's why I said "many people find that..." I suspect CFA doesn't find it hateful.
I don't find it particualrly hateful either - in fact, where is the hate? One group says we are not content with this transcendant institution and the other says it is a transcendant institution and needs tobe preserved. Hard to find hate in there.
The term hateful , in California, means what you do that I don't like. What does hateful mean to you?
Unless you are a minority of any kind , then you can't be hateful, unless you are a Jew dealing with a Muslim, unless you are... Moral relativism is more relative than moral.
I think you are confusing the freedom to say what you want and donate where you wish with some previously unknown right to do so without having any fallout from making such things public.
It always amuses me when people say and do things that they know are going to piss people off then stand around looking confused when people get pissed off.
If you are going to be an outspoken supporter of an opinion that hurts a group then expect that group not to like you. It's not exactly rocket science.In this case it is the involvement of the Chicago government that has made it a Constitutional issue.
Possibly... but likely not.
There is quite a difference between religious views and political views. In this case Chick-fil-A is discussing a POLITICAL view.
In addition...and a completely separate argument...undesirable businesses are stopped by churches all the time. Or the strip club industry would just save their most loyal customers the bother of a drive across town and place their clubs right beside churches.Very true, the three mayors who stated Chick-Fil-A is not welcome in their cities definitely have given the religious protagonists a valid constitutional violation. They obviously didn't think that one through.
Not necessarily... most areas have zoning regulations against "undesirable" businesses. In the past these regulations have been used to deny abortion clinics and porn shops from being established. Generally the "undesirable" label is loosely defined and it is usually the Christians that use it to their advantage. Turnabout is fair play.
If that is the case turnabout is still unConstitutional.
I'm inclined to agree actually. However it is probably legal.
If it gets to the courts, given the public statements of the politicians involved - perhaps not. Seeking to keep a business out of a neighborhood specifically because you personally disagree with the free expression of its CEO becomes a very different and disturbing thing when one has political authority.
Then realize that you are opening the door for abortion clinics to operate wherever they damn well choose... same with adult bookstores and bars.
Perhaps, but it can be fought out in the courts over and over as far as I am concerned so long as the reasons are not based a politician disagreeing with the expressed opinioni of someone and using zoning laws to punish.
Then I am right behind you on this. I'll carry the signs.
There are literally thousands of cities where planned parenthood can't operate because religious groups have stopped it under the undesirable clause. If having a Chick-Fil-A in my neighborhood means those services become easily accessible I am right there.There are an increasing number of cities where planned parenthood can't work because there is no market.
Good for them...
That's a little different then the religious right doing EXACTLY what the mayors are doing. Right?VCERYVERYV ERY different. An elected official is using his power to punish an opinion with which he disagrees. That is unConstitutional. You, as a private citizen, working in concert to elect those who agree with you about zoning priorities or petitioning the government to support your view is not unConstitutional.
That's quite a philosophical backflip there...
It sounds like you're saying it's okay in one case because you agree but the exact same thing is not okay when you disagree....Hardly. I think protesting an abortion clinic is a moral imparative for those who don't hate black fetuses. But, if a politician said, I disagree with the public statement of thePresident of 'Kill a Black Baby,Inc,' and sp they will be barred from my city." I would object to his position. The Constitution bars the government - at any level - to punish speech. It does not prohibit individual citzens from protesting speech. Nor does it prohibit state and local government from establishing standards for city planning. However, it does ban those standards from meting out punishment for free speech by an individual in the company.
Complex ideas sometimes have complex answers. Sometimes they have simple ones.
Is that a problem? Or is it only a problem because you think it is?
I am all for opening the doors for ALL businesses, regardless of their personal beliefs. Including Chick-fil-A.Hey... how about actually reading what I post and understanding it before posting snarky comments?
I personally think planned parenthood should be like the health department... there should be at least one in every city.
If the Christians want to stop protesting it then I will be happy to march with them to get Chick-Fil-A restaurants on every damn street corner.
Then Conservative Christians can HAPPILY not visit planned parenthood offices and Gays can HAPPILY not visit either place.
I would tend to agree with that, Melissa. However, what the mayors failed to address is the fact their cities are filled with institutions that harbor the very same people who support Chick-Fil-A - the Churches.
So we want mayors to start punishing thought crimes?
So it is time to toss churches out of cities because they do not share your thoughts on marriage?
"...what the mayors failed to address is the fact their cities are filled with institutions that harbor the very same people who support Chick-Fil-A - the Churches."Churches should have been tossed out of cities centuries ago.
Exactly, those mayors failed to understand they already have many institutions in their cities that are filled with believers who support Chick-Fil-A - trying to deny a Chick-Fil-A in their cities is hypocritical.So you do advocate thought crime legislation - good for you, perhaps I should stop by to pick up the big yellow crucifix I will have to sew on my coat.
Uh, those others who are donating money to make gay marriage legal are being forced to do so because of the religious denying them their rights in the first place.
Do you not see that?No one is banned from marrying - except close relatives, those already married and those seeking to defraud the government. The government does not ask if one is homosexual when issuing a marriage license.
Have a look at the map of the US on this link and see if that's true or not...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … s_by_stateNo one is banned from marrying. Marriage is one man and one woman and no one is asked about their sexuality inorder to marry.
But they do ask about their gender... so it's right to discriminate based on gender?
Marriage is a specific thing. It is licensed relationship between a man and a woman. Nothing else, aside from the relatives, multiples and fraud restrictions, is asked. Marriage has nothing to do with discriminating anymore than getting a hairdresser's license is discriminator.
So if I wanted to marry my girlfriend then it wouldn't be sex discrimination to tell me I couldn't do it because I don't have a penis?
That sounds pretty much like the text-book definition of gender discrimination to me.You can have any relationship you want with another woman just not marriage, that would require a man. It is non-exclusive, purely objective. Just like a driver's license, private detective's license, etc... No one is banned from marriage. Pretty simple. It requires one of each gender to get the license. That is all. After you get the license, you have a license.
No specific genitalia are required for driver's licenses and detective licensing. Nor are specific genitalia required for any other form of legal partnership. Your point is invalid.
A driver's license requires specific criteria be met. Marriage licenses do the same. marriage has nothing to do with sex or much else than a man and a woman getting a license.
Of course genitalia are not required. That is an overstatement of the obvious. Perhaps Freud would have something to say about this.
Hi there Undermyhat. May I insert my quill here?
I have seen you repeat that marriage requires a man and a woman. However, that is not the case in 8 out of 50 states. Only 42 states define marriage the way you do and the number is declining. Six states and D.C. recognize some form of same-sex marriage using Orwellian doublespeak terms like “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships.”
In as much as marriage is a commitment and a contract between two people of any gender combination, religion’s role is strictly ceremonial.
I enjoy following your comments, Under.
I welcome your input - it is always congenial.
Not to nit pick - and I could be mistaken, but I am pretty certain I did not say marriage requires a man and a woman - I believe I have been saying marriage is a licensed relationship between a man and a woman. Any other combination is not marriage but another, and unlicensed, arrangement.
How many of those 8 states required that the courts over step their boundaries and insert themselves into a clearly legislative matter? Besides, I am amused when a state decides to undefine marriage by introducing the arbitrary into the licensing. Just two? Why not more? Just unrelated people? Why not related? Upon what basis does civil marriage rest? With the specific and unambiguous a man and a woman licensing little room is left to insert these questions.
What is required is a re-definition of a long held concept that has transcended cultures, religions, regions and historical pageants. Marriage is one of the basic fundamental relationships of civilization. How does redefining it into something more arbitrary, more ambiguous continue to bend the "civilizational" curve upward? Once ideas of love and happiness - something I defy anyone to define clearly - are introduced all reason and objectivity depart. To change the definition of something so basic and already clearly defined is to irreversibly change that thing.
Every time homosexual "marriage" is put to a vote it loses. It requires the creation of a right, via the courts, to gain acceptance in the places where the definition has changed.
Thanks for the input - helping refine my argument is appreciated
No one is barred from marrying who is homosexual. The sole requirement, and it is one that transcends time, place, era, society, history, religion, etc..., is that it is man and woman. No man is denied marriage, no woman is denied marriage.
And yet, the link I provided shows many states in which gay marriage IS banned.
LOL!The problem is a pollution of language. When one applies for a marriage license it is only necessary for the person applying with you to be of the opposite sex, not directly related, neither of you already married and not seeking to evade or defraud.
Nothing else is asked. Marriage licenses are not denied to someone who is homosexual based on homosexuality. Licenses are not granted for people of the same sex, heterosexual or homosexual. Sexuality is not a condition for marriage - at all.
A marriage license is a legal state between a man and a woman, that is all. The nature, definition and conduct of that relationship is not explored by government - unless fraud is suspected - this is usually in the case of immigrant marriages.
It is not that hard to deal with a plain fact. No one is barred from marrying because they are homosexual.
*****One must meet certain criteria to be issued a driver's license - none of which have anything to do with sexuality. One must meet certain criteria to be issued a private investigator's license - none of which have anything to do with sexuality.
One must meet certain criteria to be issued a marriage license - none of which have anything to do with sexuality.
We can argue Chicken/Egg with this one.
Like I said before, we all only do what we think is right. And we also have the right to spend our money the ways we choose.That's laughable. There would be no issues if Christians just kept their beliefs behind closed doors.
No, you are not doing what you "think" is right, you are doing what your religious indoctrination has told you to believe.I am not following any religious doctrine. I am atheist. Please adjust your hate-statement to fit me into the mold.
I just recently visited Chick-Fil-A I am not boycotting them because they are entitled to their opinion and beliefs. It does not matter to me who is married to whom, that is their own business, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, beliefs and opinions.
I don't care who gets married because in all reality, I don't believe it's any of my business who someone falls in love with. I also think that people should be entitled to their beliefs and should be able to donate money to whatever charity or individual floats their boat, no matter who or what it is. We are all different with our own opinions and beliefs and that's one of the things that makes us individuals and interesting. Even the KKK unfortunately has a right to exist no matter how much the majority of people dislike what they stand for. (Someone mentioned them earlier in the thread.)
We all spout that this is America and that people should be free to make their own choices and live their own lives... but what most people really mean is you can have that freedom of choice only if "I" agree with you.
If people want to eat at Chick-Fil-A, then they should eat there. If they don't, then they shouldn't.
I don't eat there but it has nothing to do with their opinions on anything. I don't eat there because they use chicken that is commercially farmed and I don't support that type of food system. I also don't eat at KFC, Popeye's, Churches or any other fast food restaurant because I'm against the cruelty and chemicals/additives of commercial farming. I just don't want that garbage in my body.The right to marry is something that should not be voted upon by others...
Well, it is, and has been for some time.
It used to be illegal to marry interracially, too.
Also, it is now illegal to get married if you are underaged without your parent's concent.
Like I said earlier, I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the law. But it does. And in a country where we all vote on something, we are all going to vote on marriage (well, those who choose to vote, anyway).I do not believe individual states had the choice to vote on whether or not inter racial couples could be married...
They did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracia … ted_States
As you can see by that chart, many states did not vote 'yes' on it until the 60s. It was cause for a lot of controversy in the 60s, such as couple could be legal in one state, and not in the other. Controversy similar to what we are seeing today with gay couples.
Gay marriage is legal in some states. It's not legal in many states, though. I don't think there will ever be a federal law encompassing marriage, because it STILL varies from state to state: Some states grant commonlaw marriages, others dont.
- Teresa Higginsposted 12 years ago0
Don't know if anyone has noticed but Americans all over the place are exercising their free speech today. It's Chik Fil A day and the restaraunts are packed! Other fast food joints have support messages on their own signs too. When God blesses a company man can't stand in the way. The same God who blessed Chik Fil A will bless all who turn to Him.
Maybe God and chick-fil-a can team up to feed all the starving children and families in the U.S. If that company spent the money they do on anti-gay organizations on feeding the starving instead then I'd respect them as a Christian company and maybe even eat there. (They aren't even in my area so it isn't a choice for me.)
If they aren't in your area, your boycott kinda has a mute point, don't you think?
Chick-fil-A is a franchise. Locally owned and oporated, serving the communities in which they exist. In a way, they do provide starving people with food; many foodplaces in my community donate the uneaten food/breads at the end of the day to the shelter, not to mention the jobs which it provides, so employed people don't have starving families.
Non-franchises? More profits go up the corporate ladder than into the hands of the community.Yeah it's pretty much a moot point. They aren't getting my money either way. I haven't gone as far as to declare a boycott against the company, I just know that if given the choice I wouldn't spend money there. It's a topic I feel strongly about which is why I jump in the discussion.
You may want to do a little research. Chic-Fil-A is very much involved with helping those in need to include starving children. The Winshape Foundation does quite a bit for children that are orphaned, not to mention education in the form of scholarships and they give more than most companies.
You're right that they do those things. I was just thinking more along the lines of the hunger epidemic and how much money they donate specifically to organizations that actively lobby against gays and lesbians. Why concentrate so much on that when so many citizens don't even have the basic need of food? I'm sure there are many companies that are similar in that they don't donate to help the hungry and I wish more would. It just seems that the most humanitarian Christian thing to do would be to help the hungry over giving scholarships to Christians. I'm probably nit picking but it bothers me.
Its not just Christians. They give out scholarships to foster children who are going to age out of the system and have no financial support from foster families to help send them to college. They pay for them to attend college and trade schools and fund career training for these kids while they are in school to give them some idea of what they want to be when they grow up. They also sponsor a Kyle Petty run that raises awareness and funds for Victory Junction(a camp for terminally ill children), they also sponsor one of the largest foster care systems in the country. There's more...such as money donated to cancer research and the Ronald McDonald House, not to mention numerous charity drives that they have participated in for personal illnesses people suffer such as meningitis and cerebral palsy. They are actually VERY involved in charity work and the organization regarding GBLT is only one area that they donate money. People just tend to forget all the good and focus only on the bad.
Wait... God blessed a restaurant?
Children are starving to death covered in flies and God blesses Chick-Fil-A?
If that's truly how it works then God is a bit of a bugger isn't he?
Dan Cathy didn't just say he supported the Bible's views on traditional marriage. He said that accepting homosexuality makes us arrogant, stubborn and incites God's wrath on the nation. He made homosexuals into a dangerous threat to society and to the nation as a whole. Which oh by the way is the same thing Hitler said about Jews.
I'm a Christian, but my faith is about inspiration, not alientation.Yes, and in his opinion/beliefs, that is true. He is entitled to believe being gay goes against God's will.
Also, Hitler? Really? You're comparing him to Hitler? Is Chick-fil-A really behaving as Hitler would?
Chick-fil-A has stated as follows:
Hitler may have had his 'justifications' in religious beliefs, and so might Chick-fil-A, but in NO MEANS are they at all similar.It's not a comparison. It is a fact that both Hitler, and some Christians including Dan Cathy have singled out a specific group of people to be a threat to the patriotism and safety of their nations.
"Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000.
Bureon Ledbetter, Chick-fil-A's general counsel, says the company works hard to select people... who "fit." "We want operators who support the values here," Ledbetter says."
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.htmlYou are saying this but I believe there are many employers that fire Christians because their clean lifestyle many times makes the other employees uncomfortable but many Christians try to avoid suing people so many times they are fired and just look for employment some where else.
Your employer shouldn't know your religion.
It is illegal for him to even ask in an interview. Nor does ANYONE fire someone for a clean lifestyle.
However if you are running off at the mouth about your religion every minute of the day then you deserve to be fired... unless you are clergy you can't preach and work at the same time.Then why does everyone have to know your homosexual and accept same sex marriage listen to what you are saying.
I love everybody I won't be responding anymoreApparently the electorate answer questions about licensing procedures because it has turned down every effort to legalize the re-definition of marriage as something other than one man/one woman.
Maybe because gay men and women don't spend every working hour trying to convert their co-workers to their sexuality. If your gay, that's part of who you are, not the whole but part. Same if you're Christian, unless of course you have decided that there are no other aspects to your being and everyone should be just like you.
*Giggles*
I've heard the Christian conversion speech a million times. Maybe the gays SHOULD work up an official conversion program. It would have to be better than... "If you aren't saved you are going to hell."Now that would be a truly interesting conversation to overhear...
Christians: If you are gay you are going to hell...
Gays: If you become gay you will always shave with the grain and never get razor-burn... Your house will be clean, you clothes will be coordinated and darling you will look fabulous!
Lesbians: Never pay a mechanic again!
Bi-Sexuals: Never pay for a drink again!
Transexuals (male to female) Gain 20 I.Q. points instantly!
Transexuals (female to male) Pee standing up!
*Note: For those who don't understand sarcasm... the above post was made to laugh at stereotypes. The stereotypes... of course... aren't accurate. Since everyone else was being so open with quoting stupidity as facts I figured I'd take a turn.Thanks for explaining that to me. Your command of stupidity is stupendous.
What a loving Christian thing to say.
I always laugh when I see people like you contorting themselves in the agonies of their righteous hatred.
The best part is, you probably think you want to help people find the Lord and Savior. You probably think you have a role to play in spreading the Word of God. And yet, here you are, the salesman of Jesus, acting like an angry, spitting cat.
Imagine a vacuum cleaner salesman standing across the street at your neighbor's house, screaming at her from her door step, "You stupid piece of crap. You can't clean your house with that outdated vacuum you have. What are you, a moron. Open the door you filthy hussy, so I can show you what I've got."
Then, eventually, the salesman walks away from the house defeated, fuming and muttering, and makes his way towards your house. He can't figure out why you have no interest in seeing him demonstrate his machine.
If you say so. It's obvious that based on the lawsuits against them, Chick-Fil-A does not abide by their own moral and ethical standards.
They have a right to an opinion. They make good food, and I think maybe society is way too quick to label anyone, or any corporation has a hater of something. What is the old saying any free advertising is good advertising?
I'm happy to see Christians finally standing up for what's right! Now if they would do the same against the NWO!
What's Right is not always (heh - not often! what is right. And discrimination is never right, not even if you hide behind the Bible's errors to try and justify your judgmental prejudices.
Should I quit discriminating against pedophiles, too?
Classic flame bait. 60 years ago, you'd have alleged that it was your right to discriminate against folks of a particular hue from eating at your counter? Why? Because s/he might steal a fork, as you would have alleged all folks of that hue are prone to doing?
You are worse. You don't have ignorance as an excuse. DO you???!Have somebody read the hard words for you. then ask (him) what willful ignorance is. Ask what deliberately nonresponsive is. Ask about non sequiturs, red herrings and other logical fallacies.
My last reply to you. I am not going to play your childish games. You're just not worth it.
"The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2010 alone, WinShape received $8,067,161 from Chick-fil-A Inc.
Some of the other anti-gay organizations and hate groups Chick-Fil-A’s money has supported include Marriage & Family Foundation, Fellowship Of Christian Athletes, and the Georgia Family Council. The Family Research Council (FRC), mentioned above, is a certified anti-gay hate group."
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ch … 7/02/42684
"Are Chick-Fil-A‘s profits supporting the infamous Uganda “Kill The Gays” bill?
Every year, millions of dollars from Chick-Fil-A’s corporate profits are donated to Chick-Fil-A’s wholly-owned non-profit “charity,” the Winshape Foundation. In turn, Winshape donates millions to anti-gay organizations, many of which spend most or all their focus on defeating or repealing same-sex marriage, trying to “pray away the gay,” spreading lies and hate about the LGBT community, and more."
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ch … 8/01/45430
But don't gay rights organizations do the same thing are gay rights organizations spending money right now because they want to change his opinion but it is OK for you to do it?
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Provide examples or citations to those gay rights organizations that are equivalent to Chick-Fil-A?
Who cares about Uganda? I don't want my resources pooled into other country's problems.
Thanks for that information from highly-biased sources. And that pretty graphic you created, probably using the Chick-fil-A logo in violation of their copyright standards.
And you still won't change my mind. They are entitled to be anti-Gay, as you are entitled to be anti-anti-Gay.Not you, obviously.
Are they "highly biased-sources" because you say so?
Ah, so you didn't click the link to see that graphic on the website, which means your comments here are obviously biased and uninformed.
That's nice.
Just realized Chick-Fil-A was a restaurant chain and not a gentleman's club. My bad.
OMG, scathingly brilliant idea for a money making chain of gentlemen's clubs called, ready,... Chicks Fill "D"s - not nice but it made me laugh.
There are 2 Chick fil a stores in Nor. Cal. . BFF met me and we drove 140 miles for chicken yesterday. NBC didn't cover the story. The store closed at 5:30 because it ran out of food. ( Usually open until 10pm) I went because I know how much my kids like their chicken. I was 1/2 there and curious. There were no protest signs. People were friendly despite the long line.
Do any of you really know for fact the project that chick fil a supports?The WinShape foundation is the charity that the CEO of Chick-fil-A founded. To see the charities they do and the organizations they donate money to you can look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinShape
One of the groups they donate money to is called the Family Research Council which is listed as a hate group.The CEO of Chick-fil-A is not the entire company. He is doing what he wants with his money.
I suppose I should start associating everything anyone does with the company they work for, then?
"Hey, that's a nice shirt, Kroger!"
"I find it concerning that you would spend your money on computers, Microsoft!"
"Quit buying video games, Unemployed!"The Family Reach Council and probably Focus on the Family too. My family member has been forced to change where he sits on the commuter train because of misnomers like what you have just stated. He has been threatened, had his bicycle vandalized (always very subtle to effect the maximum damage when he doesn't notice) I actually think the person who is vandalizing the bike has no idea the catastrophic damage they nearly caused.
All because he was wearing a shirt that mentioned one of these groups. What do you know about these organizations except what you have heard from the media. I would say that people who say "Known Hate Group" ,The exact wording on the threatening note,ought to do some really in dept research. Go to the source of your directed anger. Contact these organizations directly and you will be treated with courtesy and respect.What misnomer have I just stated? I posted a link to the information, if you think it's wrong then by all means find the truth. What's happening to your family member is wrong and not justifiable. The FRC organization isn't just being called a "known hate group" by people who oppose it's views and agenda. There's enough info for me to not want to support it.
Why doesn't anybody seem to be upset about what Chick-Fil-A does to gay chickens...?
Yeah....nice clumsy attempt to trivialize. Guess what, genius, they treat, behead, grind, processs, preserve and chemicalize all chickens equally. There is no "there" there in your inept red herring. Whoopsie! Sucks when smartass sarcasm backfires, doesn't it?
I think that homosexuals have to be careful not to do what some have done to them and that is bash people. It seems now if someone says something concerning gay rights or same sex marriage homosexuals boycott them and attack them. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions and the Bible should not be changed to suit individuals there should be a law or amendment created to address homosexuals rights. Is anyone changing or coming against any other religion. My question is if you say the word is not true why would you want to get married like Christians and heterosexuals do? If a person curses on a record, dresses provocative or commits any sinful act we will fight for their freedom to do that but we want to restrain Christians.I am against people beating up homosexuals and calling them names but I am also against homosexuals trying to make everyone think their way and agree with them that is wrong. Everybody is not homophobic they are just upholding the Bible.
I completely agree with this statement.
I do believe there are laws that give homosexual couples the same rights and tax status as married couples, no? I believe it's called "domestic partnership" and if I am not mistaken, unmarried straight couples can fit that criteria, as well. You don't need to be married to spend your life with someone, and have the same rights.In regards to the topic, who's bashing? Who's attacking? A boycott sure, all that is is a person deciding not to take their business there.
There shouldn't be separate "homosexual rights". It's human rights.
There are quite a few homosexual Christians. What should they do?
Why is there even a but at the end of you are against the beating up of homosexuals? Shouldn't that be it? I assure you most gays and lesbians aren't trying to make everyone think their way. Are all Christians trying to make everyone think their way?If they are homosexual Christians what do they say about Romans chapter 8?
That the bible couldn't possibly say anything about homosexuality because neither the word homosexual nor any word even approaching it's meaning existed in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Since those were the languages the bible was written in... it's a very neat trick indeed that the word suddenly exists in the modern texts.
That's glossing things over a bit, don't you think?
A bit... I could have gone into a long explanation of exactly what Romans was talking about but it would have ended back at the Sodom and Gomorrah thing. It wasn't new writing at all... it was a rebuke on those who pass judgement and references back... of course... to Genesis.
We would eventually... after many go arounds... end back at Leviticus.
I'm a bit too impatient to have bible lessons with those who verse mine today.If reinventing the whole thing works for you, that's great. Unfortunately, Paul ranted about it enough to know how he felt on the subject. The Bible does contain homophobic passages. You can't honestly deny that.
Yes I can. That's the beauty of using a 2000 year old text written by several authors in largely archaic languages translating the words of a man that was speaking a now almost completely dead language as a basis for a religion.
No one knows for sure what the hell they were talking about.Greek is a dead language? Isn't that the language Paul wrote in?
I'm not saying the Old Testament had homophobic undertones, but I do think Paul's opinions on the subject have helped people interpret the Old Testament with a homophobic flair. And I simply think the church needs to address that. Conservative Christians aren't going to change their attitudes without understanding where it went off course.
It doesn't matter that the subject didn't warrant one comment, ever, in the gospels. They take Paul's words as gospel more than anything else. And Paul was homophobic.To "understand where it went off course" requires the willingness to consider that it IS off course. That, in turn, requires an open and inquiring mind that is constantly, or even occasionally, reassessing old ideas and challenging assumptions. Since we are talking about a people who rely on a set of bronze age myths to guide them, you have to admit the chances of that happening are slim.
He wrote in Koine Greek which yes is a largely dead language.
Romans is an odd book in the first place... but most of the verses associated with the homosexuality stuff in Romans actually CAN and often ARE considered to be a rebuke from Paul warning against hypocracy.
It's an odd set-up because the next chapters basically go on to say that all you have to do is believe in Jesus for salvation... and that's it. And that everyone has sinned.
*Shrugs* I don't really have any particular love loss for Paul... if you think he was homophobic then that's your opinion. I never really got that but then again I really honestly don't think homosexuality was ever addressed in the bible at all.Paul is anything but homophobic. Paul says "There is no Jew or Greek, Slave nor Free, Woman nor Man. There is one body in Christ." Pretty simple statement of how Paul sees us. Paul may write about promiscuity, homosexuality, licentiousness, avarice, etc... as sinful but calling something sinful is not hateful. It is diagnostic, it acknowledges the flawed nature of people and the need for redemption. All fall short of the glory of God, we are made whole in Christ the redeemer. Paul also says of sin, I do that which I despise. Therefore, further acknowledging our person and flawed nature as sinners, all.
I think you are again overstating. Koine greek isn't a dead language. Modern Greek is very similar in many ways.
But, it doesn't matter. Good for you that don't see homophobia in Paul's writings. Hopefully, you can get the other Christians to agree with you.That is a big hope. People are flawed and their understanding of each other and Christianity is equally flawed. Most of us are far too busy putting food on the table and keeping a roof over our heads - actual or metaphorical - to give much genuine thought to what the New Testament means.
Actually, that may not be the case. They were called "born eunuchs" or "eunuchs from birth." The term was in use for several centuries, as I understand it, and not just in the Bible. In fact, it may amuse you to see how Jesus understood perfectly well that not all people would be able to be happy in a male-female marriage and he acknowledges it in the very same speech he's talking about marriage. Pretty funny to see how so many Christians just lop off the end of what their savior says when it starts to get inconvenient, I mean, practically mid sentence they just stop listening. Pretty funny. It's somewhere in Mathew, 19 or 20 I think, but I'm too lazy to go look.
I think it is here Shades, Matthew 19:11-12 -- “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
This is further affirmed in the Sophia of Moshiach, where he states the original man was essentially androgynous and that the immortals {those who pass though to immorality/KOH} have no need of gender relations or procreation.
JamesWoot, yes. That's it. And just look at that quote. The "this teaching" is from the lines above where he's talking about how men and women should get married and make babies, and there he says, "Let anyone accept this who CAN." Nothing follows about burn in hell or any of that stuff. Jesus was cool. It's men who are a-holes. Chik-fil-A-holes, that is.
And yet says nothing about those who cannot accept that teaching getting married.
Actually it isn't homosexuality that is condemned in the Bible, you are correct. It is homosexual sex that is condemned in the Bible and that is the position of most churches. One is homosexual, just as everyone is flawed, but when one acts in sin one is a sinner and all are sinners. A church that condones sin is not acting like a church at all. The position of the Catholic Church - my church - is very very clear on homosexuality. I do not hate the alcoholic, the promiscuous, the drug user, the philanderer nor do I condone their actions nor let them pass without comment. We are commanded to love each other despite our terribly flawed and sinful nature. In this regard, I love my homosexual brothers and sisters and pray that they find a way to be happy without sin knowing that is nearly impossible for any of us and so I pray for all to have humble and repentant hearts because it is in that state we can ask for forgiveness.
It is a complex theological notion with a simple answer - all are sinners, all will fall drastically short of perfection, all need to repent and seek forgiveness. Simple Christianity.The word "homosexual" may not be used in the Bible...but it does refer to a man being with another man. I think that's pretty much the same thing. There isn't much gray area there to play around in.
And we are back at Leviticus.... where I knew we would end up.
So you're Jewish then?no...you are picking apart the bible and pulling out words that suit your point. Leviticus isn't the only place in the bible that refers to two people of the same sex being together. It is just the one that you have chosen to use as an out. I am a Christian and I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. You believe what you believe and when the day comes that we stand before our Lord we will deal with what mistakes we made in "interpreting" the bible. I do not now nor have I ever taken a stance of hate against homosexuals. Neither do I agree that it is right, and I will never stand in support of it nad pretend that I do think it is right just because the majority thinks it is. Luckily, we don't have to agree on the issue. And in my current text of the Bible the word homosexual still doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that there was not a clear opinion in the word of whether it was right or wrong.
Umm... aren't YOU also picking apart the bible and pulling words out to suit your purpose?
Leviticus is the only part of the bible that says anything about it being an abomination. Which it really doesn't but a conversation on temple prostitutes would just confuse you... Deuteronomy repeats almost verbatim Leviticus in whole. Genesis has the Sodom and Gomorrah story which is SO not about homosexuality... and the new testament refers back to those places only to illustrate hypocracy. The birth of Christ supposedly ended the old covenant and produced a new law... so the "God's law" argument doesn't really apply.
But it is moot anyway because Leviticus was talking about male temple prostitution rather than homosexuality anyway and abomination can be translated as taboo and/or foreign.
Is the word heterosexual in the Bible no but we know in Genesis God placed a man and then a woman in the garden The first union was man and woman and continued on that way. What about when the angels were in the house and the men wanted to have sex with the angels and we know they were men because when offered a female they refused. I think we should study Rome and the Caesars and how there was a free thinking free life style and what was the result? I do not want to keep doing this cause I really love people all people but think it is wrong to change the Bible. I have done things that the Bible speaks against but I will not change the Bible for me I was wrong . Let God be true and every man a liar even me.
The Romans believed in gods and were extremely superstitious.
In answer to the question posed at the end of your post. While some people may not uphold this standard...as Christians we are called to spread Gods words. In fact it states in the Bible that we will be held accountable on judgement day. Now, I'm not trying to get all Hell-fire and whatnot--but yes as Christians it is our responsibility to try to teach others about our faith. That is what Christ called us to do. So yes...though I would not state it the way you do that Christians are trying to make every one think their way.
He called on us to spread his message... not to enforce it. Not to use it as a weapon. Not to use it to raise ourselves up. Not to use it to make laws... he himself wouldn't step in between God's law and Man's law.
Remember that "witnesses" only answer questions. To "testify" someone actually needs to ask you something.No one is trying to enforce his message and I doubt that the CEO of Chick Fil A made this statement trying to "raise himself up". In the midst of the current debate over same sex marriage-anyone who does not speak in favor does so at the risk of being ostrisized(?sp). Perhaps Christians should not feel forced to change God's Law to accomodate Man's Law. Each person has to decide for themselves where they stand on this issue. Even the heads of large companies have a right to choose which stance they take...and not be attacked in the meantime.
Oh anyone has the right to say anything they want... but nothing protects them from having someone else say their opinion right back. As is freedom of speech. Isn't it beautiful?
If he feels attacked and he can't handle it...then maybe he shouldn't have spoken out. If he had the balls to speak out though he should be perfectly fine with other's telling him what they think of him.
He has ABSOLUTELY no right or even reason for reason to expect to be protected from other people saying things about him that he doesn't like. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.
And "God's law" only applies to Christians that believe they are God's law. You can't go to mexico and expect to obey American laws and you can't force others to adhere to a religion that they are not part of.
Man's laws apply to man.I think he has proven that he can handle the heat because he has yet to make a statement retracting what he originally stated. He is standing behind it...and if the Chick Fil A in my city is any proof their business is flourishing in support of his stand.
What if we don't want you to teach us your faith, will you do it anyways? Will you completely ignore our pleas to keep your religious beliefs to yourself?
Why not just take your beliefs and live with them on your own and not expect others to share them? That way, you need not be gay and still be fine when held accountable on judgment day.
Of course, you just might be held accountable on judgment day when God demands to know why you were bothering and annoying others trying to spread the word when they didn't want to hear it?All Christians don't preach to others. In my opinion, Christians were told to spread the word at a time when the religion was new and many were not familiar with its teachings. Let's face it - prolly everyone in the US, maybe in the entire world, knows that Christianity is there if they want it. If someone asks me to share my religious thoughts, I'm glad to do so. Otherwise, I try to keep my mouth shut. lol
Hi ,
It is Sunday I am resting but read Revelations there is a crown for soul winners a crown for those that avoid temptation read on... It is important to read the Bible if you are a Christian to be strengthened and know your rights
God bless!
Also- in reference to the comment about are gays/lesbians trying to force people to think their way. Wasn't today the "National Kiss-in"...where all of the people who were boycotting are all of a sudden going to support the business so that they can sit there in the Chick Fil A and kiss? Now...I don't know what other people consider shoving something down someones throat...but I can't rightly recall the last time I saw a group of heterosexuals say "hmmm...lets all get together and go somewhere and make out to see if we can make the homosexuals uncomfortable."
I went to school with people who were same sex oriented and was friends with many of them-however, if I were in a restaraunt (especially with my young children who don't understand) I would be uncomfortable if everyone around me was making out with someone of the same sex. To me that whole statement they were trying to make by having their National Kiss In made them seem very childish and immature and rather than raised support for them I think they caused more hurt. The first concert I ever went to was with a friend and her family to the Lilith Fair. I was extremely uncomfortable then so I am sure the same would be true now.
My bible says different and my church wants to marry gay couples... why does your religion trump mine?
The religion "we" belong to is always the right one. Everyone else is always the one who just doesn't get it, despite how clear it is.
Ah... now I understand.
My Christianity wrong... Their Christianity right.
and vice versa of course.
So which Christianity should be forced on the public... mine or theirs? I'm so confused. I mean if one of us is going to tamp the bible down society's then can't both of us tamp our same book with obviously different interpretations down at the same time?
Maybe God should have written a bible for dummies guide. Lord knows we all could use it.
I personally think it would be rather short...
Dear Christians... STOP being horses' asses. I'll deal with you all when you get up here. Sincerely... GOD.God bless Melissa today teach her how to agree and disagree in love and not call names isn't that one of the things gays are against certain names people call them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We are all adults and should dialogue in an intelligent mature fashion. Why don't you calm down and let God exactly do that deal with everyone, not you. Peace be still!
Not sure who YOUR God is but mine doesn't moderate the HubPages forums so I don't think he's going to be answering prayers posted here.
I'm sure you have proven your piety to yourself though...so have at it.
Your church can do as it wishes regarding homosexuals and "marriage.' No one is stopping churches from ceremonially recognizing some kind of homosexual union. A licensed marriage it is not but what ever your church wants to do that is their business because they are not handing out licenses they are dispensing church "sacraments."
So... you are saying that churches shouldn't get to decide who is LEGALLY married?
Amen.That is already decided by the state - which issues a marriage license to a man and a woman - regardless of their sexual notions.
Laws change. Democracy is beautiful. Blacks and whites couldn't marry and now they can. Christians fought those law changes on the same basis that they are fighting gay marriage today. I would be willing to bet that by the time the baby I am carrying with is old enough to get married that he will be able to marry a man in most states in the US.
I personally can't wait.not all Blacks can marry all Blacks. Blacks at that time were barred from all kinds of legal statuses. I would bet that Blacks were barred from practicing law and medicine at the same time. Marriage today can be between any conceivable hues of humanity, but even then it was one man and one woman.
"one man and one woman". Explain that to the Mormons. Or the Jews of years past. Or to any of many, many other cultures practicing polyandry or polygamy.
Christianity and it's views on this is a newcomer to the world compared to others that existed long before that upstart religion.I have said absolutely nothing what so ever about marriage as a religious institution
You are conflating religious definitions of marriage and the civil, secular one. A man and a woman is the criteria for a licensed marriage. In that regard, how ever someone's church chooses to define marriage is meaningless. It is not religious marriage that is being debated.
I have stated, plainly, if one can find a church that will marry someone to whom ever than, for that church, they are married. That marriage will only be licensed if it meets the criteria for licensing. A man and a woman who are not immediately related, of age, not already married and are not seeking to evade or defraud meet the criteria and can apply for and are issued a license for a fee. It is that simple.
A man and a woman marriage has existed as long as any other form, perhaps longer, if Marx is correct, because it was once about property, legitimacy and inheritance.
Marriage is no longer about anything other than satisfying the criteria for the license. It is a simple notion that seems to get lost in all the clutter of imprecise language and thinking.
Exactly. And that is what many of us are trying to change. I would like to see the government redefine marriage to include two consenting adults of any gender combination.
Even though voters are voting same-sex marriage into law in some states and voting it out in others, my prediction is that all this state-by-state stuff will be irrelevant once the Supreme Court eventually declares the current definition that includes only a man and a woman unconstitutional. This is a civil rights issue. When the day comes and the Justices apply constitutional law, there can be no other outcome. That day is coming.It just seems that there are more pressing issues to expend energy on at this moment. When has gay marriage ever been reconized in all of time? Do you suppose it is evolution?
Heh heh... evolution. That's another dirty word, dontcha know.
1. I would assume you think that way because you are not waiting to marry the person you plan on spending the rest of your life with and start a family. To those who are then it is a very pressing issue indeed.
2. Gay marriage has been recognized lots of places.
3. Yes in a way it is evolution... much like us frowning on burning crosses in yards. Societies evolve or die... just like species.
Why the arbitrary limit? Surly if it isn't sufficiently inclusive to be plainly a man and a woman why is it suddenly inclusive to say 2 instead of 3 or 10 or 20. Number is an arbitrary limit. The law does not limit who you love or how many so why the arbitrary limit of 2.
Why the limitation of who can marry - shouldn't it just be who ever wants to? or who ever loves each other? What about an adult daughter who wants to marry her father? Isn't the government denying the rights of a adult woman to marry whom ever she chooses, in that case?
How is it a civil rights case - no one is barred from marrying - at all.
The state issues the license. Churches don't decide.
Churches already don't decide who is legally married. That is up to the state.
Then why on earth do churches have an opinion about it?
Because to stand by while a sin is approved by the state, is itself, a sin. Should a church that believes that alcohol leads to drunkenness and drunkenness is sin not say anything about liquor laws? Where is the First Amendment, again?
Nothing that exists in the Constitution. A church cannot be barred from having an opinion on a matter of public policy. That is in the Constitution.
Besides, would you prefer that churches ignore all kinds of public policies. Many of the first abolitionist organizations were churches -the Quakers, for example. Many anti-poverty, anti-war, anti-communist...pick a policy and you will find a church supporting it or opposing it. Just as you will find any number of secular organizations supporting or opposing. So churches should just sit down and shut up. I see where liberty lies, in the trash heap.Nor should it. But if it's going to preach politics then it needs to cede it's tax-exempt status because it is then a political party not a church.
But I do love your theory. You can have your church make the laws for everyone this month and I will be forced to obey them... then next month is my church's turn. I'm sure you will LOVE being ruled by my religion.If a church in its role as church says vote specifically for or against a candidate that is electioneering. Democrats cannot afford to have that banned- though it is prohibited. Saying that something is sinful and needs to be opposed is within the religious purview of a church and is free speech and free practice - that trumps many things and appropriately.
Churches don't make laws, elective bodies do. The Constitution prohibits establishing a church based government. Churches speaking out on issues of public policy is hardly running things. Some churches succeed at helping elect officials - who hasn't seen the endless parade of Democrats across the alter? But they do not, nor should they, and if we obey the Constitution as it is written, would they run things.
*rolls eyes*
Thanks for the civics lesson. What I am saying is... If a large group of people ban together to influence public policy for whatever reason then they are a political party and should be treated as such. Religions save souls... Politicians worry about public policy.
If you are speaking out about public policy you are not running your church... you are attempting to force an entire country to obey the rules of your religion.Then labor unions ,news networks, feminists, homosexuals, Irish, Italians, Mexicans...etc, are all political parties?? There is no such thing as a political party and what constitutes one in the Constitution. There is, how ever, Free Speech and Free Association.
So you are advocating leaving your faith at the factory fence? How does one faithfully practice one's faith and yet tolerate in society things that are clearly detrimental to the human soul - such as slavery? It was religious groups that did the biggest work for racial equality. It is religious organizations that worked to end the dominance of communism in Eastern Europe. It was religious groups that worked to smuggle Jews away from the Nazis.
They should have shut up. When one watches death camp films one will occasionally see a nun or two with the Jews marching to their inevitable death. I guess they were appropriately treated by the civil authorities? I suppose when an organization speaks out about a public policy issue than every measure should be taken to silence them. I wonder how the UAW would feel about that?
Yes, they are supporting a 'homophobic' Bible.
You are right that gays should not bash as they have been bashed. First, indiscriminate bashing hurts innocents, as it is a person's actions, not their thoughts or beliefs, for which they are accountable.
Second, and more important and relevant, what is just or deserved is not always effective. While undoubtedly, both logically, via applied mathematics, and just plain 'cause it feels sooo good to give back to the haters the same rancid poison they spew, it is *OH* so just, it is almost always ineffective, or worse, counterproductive.
That is all well and good, but it is more about the actions of the owners than what they have said. I am a Christian, and also a supporter of gay rights. I think gay people are people just lik eyou and me. We all should love one another equally, but I guess that's why the Lord died for us. beucase he is the only one capable of that.
Anyway, I will not support the murders and torture that this company is involved in. Another great thing about America is we have the choice to eat where we want or don't want. As a former lover of Chic Fil A food, I will not hand over my money to a company that pays for camps and organizations that deal with killing, torturing or banning those that are gay. I can make a better chicken and healthier chicken sandwich at home where I know my money is going to a kinder place.
It's evil and we shouldn't support such terrible acts against our fello man.
Large claims require large proof - please post references for this, thank you.Thank you undermyhat ... I would like to see the proof of that as well. Murder and torture of what? Accusations like that should be back with legitimate proof.
Sears, JC Penneys, Google, Home Depot,Target all support gay marriage with millions of dollars. How many companies can you name that publicly support traditional marriage?. The point of this whole thing is people don't think. Either you are for gay marriage or you are HATEFUL. Which is ridiculous. What happened to; YOU are a person, you are AWESOME. If you allow gay marriage why not marriage for polygamists? In other countries 13 year olds marry why aren't they allowed in the US? If you believe in true equality any and everyone could marry whomever they wanted. There are places and I know a couple who married their 1st cousins. The child they produced lived for 18 years tormented by chromosomal mutations that would not have paired had the parents not been first cousins. I know people who would marry their pets were it legal. When do rights of the individual become so diverse that we have chaos.
I love this argument. Let's jump from two consenting adults of the same sex to polygamy, pedophiles, and incest. It's really not that complicated. Should we ban serial killers from getting married? They aren't exactly family types.
There is a difference between not supporting gay marriage, and being actively opposed to it.
There are good reasons to oppose the unions you suggested, which I will not go over here. There is no good reason to oppose gay marriage.Except marriage is a man and a woman being issued a license from the state. Pretty simple. Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat.
Though the law can be changed it still will not change a thing. Legally changing the name of a dog to "C-A-T" does not make a dog a cat.
But marriage is a legal concept, not an object. Legal concepts and their definitions change all the time. The definition of rights and what those rights are, for example, has changed over the years.
Marriage is an historical institution that has transcended every society and is older than every other institution except family. Marriage is older than society itself. It is so ingrained in humanity that to undo it will change things forever and not for better.
You keep saying that... I don't think it means what you think it means.
Marriage is older than society? Marriage has transcended society?
Okay... sure marriage has existed longer than people have been living together in groups... err so individuals married who? And who married them? Where did they find spouses and clergy if there were no societies? How was there religion if there were no society?
Older than every other institution except family?
So marriage existed before culture... before society... before religion... sure.
Your scenario: Two people who accidentally stumbled over each other in the middle of the jungle (because there were no societies) then found a third loner and immediately decided that he should do a ceremony in grunts (no society no need for language) to bond them together forever for no particular reason at all... (no laws no religion)He tried to use this "it's always been that way" fallacy on me. Point out that polygamy, pederasty, child-marriage, incest, slavery, genital mutilation, torture, stoning... etc. are all also historical traditions that go back "through all of history." He hates when you point out the existence of a tradition is not the same as there being only one way to do something.
It's better than his circular argument...
"It isn't marriage because the law defines marriage as a women and a man. You can't change the law because then it wouldn't be defined as a woman and a man... and that's how the law defines it."
And that law has always existed... and laws never change...
because they ...wait for it...
have existed longer than society itself...LOL I know. I think he watched too many Leave it to Beaver reruns growing up and got sucked into a fantasy universe where, from the earliest prehistory, mommy and daddy came home every night and read little Ugh Junior stories painted on the cave wall. LOL.
Civilization does not carry on these things to now as a valued practice but marriage is highly prized. So prized that people risk undoing it to turn it into something it is not - a place to publicly validate love(what ever that is). There is no reality of NOW there is only reality.
There is no marriage formula that isn't about a man and a woman. Polygamy is still about a man and a woman(one at a time) - the wives are not some kind of broad communal marriage. Purchased brides - a man purchases a woman. Child brides - a man purchases/arranges/contracts/kidnaps a bride(a female of undetermined age.) Contract marriages - a man and a woman. Arranged marriages - a man and a woman. Polyandry - a woman and a man(one at a time.)
What lasting developed society and culture practices anything but monogamy? India still has family arranged marriages - a man and a woman - but they understand marriage isn't about love or sex or happiness. Marriage is a thing unto itself defined externally by eons of human development and internally by those participating in it. You may find it circular but that is because we have destroyed language and reason in favor of feelings. People stopped thinking about things a long time ago. When you bring up an emotionally charged subject like marriage reason checks out.You've been dancing around this issue for page after page. Why don't you stop trying to hide what you really think behind an endless string of fallacy?
Just admit you don't think gays should get the same rights as heterosexuals. Just say it. It won't kill you. We all already know it anyway.
Why can't you be brave enough to face your own opinion directly? You talk about destroyed language and reason, and yet you just keep talking around the truth and spewing poorly constructed arguments. Use your command of language to say it succinctly. I can do it for my side of the argument: All people deserve equal treatment under the law. Period
See, now you try. Keep it under ten words like I did, that way you won't be tempted to dissemble or qualify. Say what you mean. Man up. Straight to it. I'll be fascinated to see if you can pull it off, or if you'll put up some plompf and say you won't play my game or something. Hope you don't. Be interesting to see you commit for once.
Clergy and religion are not necessary for marriage. Unlike now, when a church could perform homosexual "marriages." It is licensed marriage that is being fought over though an alternative exists if it is actually about "love" or "happiness." Family derives from permanent pairing and therefore from the first ideas of marriage. All else flows from permanent pair bonding, off spring and the need for tribe, then clan, then society, then culture and civilization.
Wow... that statement completely flies in the face of all known conclusions of the entire anthropology field.
State your opinions as facts much?
Such drama. You say that marriage is so ingrained in humanity that its definition cannot possibly be changed, not even one tiny bit, when in fact it already has changed many times. As I understand it, people of the same sex were married in some cultures for centuries before marriage evolved into its modern form. Its definition has already changed many times and it has not become "undone." Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is not "undoing" it, it is changing it. It is still a legal union between two consenting, unrelated adults. You are choosing to hold on with white knuckles to an outdated law that for some reason you believe was writtten in stone before society began and can never, ever be changed.
Laws are constantly changing and evolving to fit the times. Fortunately, the current time is that of growing understanding and acceptance. Society is learning that being gay is a biological state and not a choice, just as being hetero is. Many countries have already changed their marriage laws to include same-sex unions. You might as well get used to it. It is going to happen in the USA sooner or later, despite your claim that it has always been exactly what it is today and that to change its definition would "undo" something that is "older than society itself," LOL.---- people of the same sex were married in some cultures for centuries before marriage evolved into its modern form.
These pairings were not called marriage. In ancient Rome,. the model for moral conduct -Nero - attached himself by ceremony to a male slave. It was still not marriage as the Romans had a legally defined marriage between a man and a woman. In ancient China it was still not called nor compared to marriage but was a legal partnership between older and younger women. Though homosexuality is ancient, homosexual "marriage" is not.
And there have been calls for boycotts against every one of those businesses.
what are you talking about? What torture and murder and if you are going to say these things give facts.
Now I'm all confused... if I eat at Chick-Fil-A now, am I a hateful homophobe, or a brave warrior standing up for free speech rights?
As an American you can be both. There were men of good character, morals and good will who despised slavery yet fought and died for the Confederacy. We are an inherently conflicted people.
(Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers??? - that Fat Freddy's Cat???- Dude you are an anachronism)Yep, that FatFreddysCat. I also answer to "F. Frederick Skitty"
Please stop comparing homosexuality with slavery it is not the same
Perhaps you should re-read the posting. I made no such comparison. Nor would I. Ask around.
You are right, Velda. Homosexuality and slavery are not the same thing. but the hate, ignorance, prejudice, discrimination, violence, degradation, dehumanization, ostricization that oozes from ALL bigots, whether their hate is based on skin tone or primal sexual drive - IS *EXACTLY* THE SAME.
Oh, yes, it sure the hell IS!why is it bigotry when you don't agree or your values are different? There are people who have friends that are gay who they love as people who understand I love you but I think your sexual preference is wrong. I believe what the Bible says and they feed their gay friend, cry with them, pray over them how is that bigotry?
Well, both prejudices are based on how a person was born. Your point is valid that you might not hate gay people, but you are judging them as sinful for something about them as innate as their skin tone. I'm just not sure if that isn't even worse.
There are people who have asked a gay friend why is this your life style and the response was when I was a young child someone molested me an adult male so I felt this is who I am or why would they choose me so is this being born that way? Why is it a great percentage of homosexuals have been molested . Many women say they are promiscuous because someone raped or molested them and now they feel this is who they are.
That is a myth and one that has been debunked over and over....
Please if you are going to be anti-gay you should at least know something about homosexuality....
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i … r/10-mythsMelissa,
This is a true situation this person had relationships with males and stated this about his own life you cannot tell every gay person their truth. The person who said this died of aids he is not here anymore but it was his truth about his life. You may not like it but this is what he said these were his feelings. He did not say from a baby he was attracted to males.I wasn't attracted to ANYONE as a baby. Sorry to say this about your friend but his molestation probably occurred before he was attracted to anyone as well. Kids get molested... and kids that were going to grow up to be gay anyway get molested too. As a matter of fact since around one in ten people are gay I am assuming that means that one in ten children who are molested were born gay too.
I was not molested. I am bi-sexual. I was raped but I already knew I was bi-sexual when I was raped. And the rape... btw... certainly didn't make me promiscuous.
My mom was great... my dad was great... no childhood trauma. My parents are both straight. I'm not possessed by the devil and I have no psychological issues that weren't acquired until long after I knew I liked girls. None of your theories on my sexual orientation apply in my case. I just happen to find women attractive... just like I find men attractive. There is absolutely no difference in the feelings and they certainly aren't choices.
I must conclude then that I really was born this way.
Let me first say that I am in no way saying the following about you. Not at all.
Now, only - I repeat *ONLY* - to give people some pause, let's call the world flat and assume that this conjecture about childhood sexual abuse being the cause of "a great percentage" of homosexuality. That would make the homosexual a *victim* not a sinner.
But, back to reality as I, as informed and intuitive about this subject as anybody can be, and the vast majority of gay people were not molested. They were born with this basic attraction. As courteous and civil as you have been, I have got to be absolutely emphatically clear on this: the myth you are citing is a bunch of complete and utter hogwash. It is nonsense. Again, just to be absolutely as fair as I can, I'm letting you know that I DO know this, as a scholar, as an activist, and as a sexual being. Sexuality is as innate as skin tone. Period. Not trying to be harsh to *you* but the nature of sexual orientation is genetic and/or biological. There is no correct or rational argument to the contrary. None.People are not born gay. It is a learned behavior There is no correct or rational argument to the contrary. None.
It is contrary to nature and everyone knows so. All of this frenetic energy expended to distort a long known reality is a smokescreen for the conscience. If you are referring to Y chromosome "discoveries". That study has definitely been de-bunked through he years. They fudged . . . no . . . fabricated the results.
If someone chooses to behave in such a way. What is that to me? It is unreasonable to invest emotion in my opinion, or expect me to approve of what I know is abhorrent behavior.Yes, but the X chromosome studies haven't be debunked and continue to provide evidence, as do sibling studies, birth order issues, brain structure stuff and a whole bunch of other things. When you try to reduce it to a, "Nope, cain't be caused by nuthin but a choice," you declare to the reading public how unfathomably uninformed your position is. That suggests that your arguments are based not only in ignorance but in hate, because, rather than having taken any time whatsoever to learn about the many, many complex ways human biology AND human families and culture can impact sexual orientation, you just go, "Nuh-uh," and call the argument settled.
I realize that having a bronze age book of myths from which you can pick and choose the lines that best justify easy answers and any hateful act or discriminatory practice keeps things simple, but it's not a great way to build a nation.Those are not conclusive studies. Don't get your hopes up.
Bronze age book? The word of God is not a book. The Word of God is a person. The Word of God spoke all of this into exitence. It was the beginning of time. The Word of God holds all things together. The Word of God will have the last word . . . "The tribes of the Earth will mourn." . . . when they realize their folly on his return. The "Day of the Lord'"will arrive,soon. Get ready!
There will be mockers and evil men will proceed from bad to worse.Well, I'm happy that you find comfort in that particular set of myths. Life is a big scary thing, and death is even more scary, so whatever it takes to get through. More power to you. However, on the science thing, it's usually best not to pretend you have any inkling of how scientific inquiry works in the same breath as all the rest of that.
Uh yeah, anyone can see that if you make irrational and illogical claims, others will mock them.
Perhaps, that's what the Bible is explaining to it's followers, that the beliefs held within them are indeed irrational and illogical, so be prepared to be mocked.Doing that, prepping the flock for "naysayers" is not only a standard technique for cult building, it's employed almost uniformly in multi-level marketing systems too. "People are going to tell you it's a bad business plan. They're going to tell you its a scam, but don't believe them. Remember, you are here to build a better future for your family, and you need to stay the course." BAM, a little psychology, a little non sequitur playing on hope (or fear), and you have a nice self-sustaining bit of pseudo-evidence.
Hello? You are cult building right now. As one of your tenants, you are fomenting hatred of those with different ideas.
Ohhh...a sarcastic bigot who "ain't taken to nunnuh that thar book lurnin'" s'uch as to be able to find your own words for your dead-from-the-start faux-argument.
Hmmmm...never seen me an ig'nant bigot afore!!
I will say this again every gay person I know personally was sexually abused now that is the truth. I will not name names as I respect their privacy. One guy we were friends for years he has since moved to another state he was touched by a man when he was a child. I know a gay female her cousin and a neighbor tampered with her as a child. Did you see the movie "Holiday Heart' He did not say he was born that way he said his Mother 's boyfriend was hitting her he killed him and was sent to prison and was passed around a jail cell. He never said he was born that way. Donnie McClurkin said two relatives sexually abused him. He wrote a book about it.
And I will say THIS: out of fairness and an "I will DIE first" practice of avoiding impuning the innocent, I have to take you at your word. But I have to tell you, this claim of yours *REALly* challenges truth! The only reasonable "out" is that YOU believe it, but someone or several are lying to you, either about having been molested (perhaps as a subconscious rationalization for a natural orientation they have yet to accept, or (and, God, I hope this isn't it!!) they themselves, or a desperate parent, or a criminally ambitious prosecutor compelled a "false memory".
The only other child logical or statistically realistic explanation is that you have a very small number of gay friends (which is the truth for most heteros, especially the further you get from the coasts) or you deliberately (I doubt this), or subconsciously hand-selected only those gay folk who have been abused to befriend, perhaps psycholically being able to "accept" their friendship because their gayness is "excused". I...I really don't know your circumstances, but I do know reality, and I REALLY know the DSM, and I know both as a lay researcher AND from 24h*7d*52w *40+y of bull's-eye - relevant experience (life as a gay man, and no, I don't see children as yet-defined sexual beings, so even as I had red-flag attractions and an affinity toward feminine identity - A SEPERATE MATTER! - sexual life begins with behavior/experience. Exploration and/or "questioning" is the experimental stage, the "data collection" if you will. The results, as knowable in full only by that individual either prove or disprove his/her hypothesis.
And, as a biologically mature gay man, with the aforementioned (and OOOH so much more very personal life experience) from which to form personal insight that you, by your own reported hetero identity do NOT have, I know for a FACT that -whatever the reason!- the circumstances you report are *EXCEPTIONALLY* rare.I call BS. Produce some reliable info to back up your wild claims, please. Anecdotal evidence ("I know someone...") is worthless. If your claims were valid, there would be far more homosexuals running around than there are. How do you account for heteros who were molested as children?
Bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
This is a good description of your communications here on these forums. Where are your hubs? Aren't you supposed to write hubs on HubPages?
You mean, when believers spout the gospels telling me I must accept Jesus or fry for an eternity, it is me who is intolerant? Okee dokee.
Where is your logic, your rationale, your reason?
This is just one of many articles that show there is more to this issue than what is on the surface.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bad … 25237.html
Along with many news reports on TV and RadioBut do we know whether these donations were made under the name "Chick-fil-A" or "Cathy"?
Which leads me to my original statement: Should Cathy choose to donate to hate groups, that is his business. Chick-fil-A sign's his paycheck, but I doubt Chick-fil-A signs a paycheck to hate groups.
I get paychecks from the company I work for, too, but nobody is going to condemn the company if I choose to donate to a hate group. And saying that's because I'm not rich, or I'm not a public figure, is quite frankly the same kind of discrimination people are accusing Chick-fil-A of.Ghost Chickens in the Sky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m__B3abMJQA
I think it's not right that two consenting adults are not allowed to legally build their family like heteros can. I think it is a shame that someone could have a life partner of many years but not be able to include them on their health insurance. Many same-sex couples who have children together would like to be married but are not able to. I think it's terrible when a person is in the hospital on life support but their life partner is not allowed into the room or be involved in any of the medical decisions. Instead, the people who get to call the shots are the parents who haven't seen their child in 30 years, after they disowned him/her when he/she came out of the closet. These are just some practical reasons gays might want to be able to be married. There are many more that pertain to love, devotion, wanting to spend their lives together, etc. I don't see why it's such a big deal, especially if the ceremony is not being performed in a church that is against it.
All valid points.
I do, however, think that people who hold marriage close to their faith (many Christians) might find it insulting that people they consider to be anti-(Christ/Bible/etc) sinners, feel entitled to something that has deep buried roots in their religion.
I do agree that they deserve the same rights. If I am correct, many states issue the "domestic partner" thing I mentioned earlier (Yes, not all, such as North Carolina making it illegal for unmarried partner to adopt the child of the partner-adopted or biological-yet gay could not get married---that needs to be updated).
All I am saying is that I think the laws can be updated to include gays, without treading on a Christian concept.Are you saying that marriage is strictly a Christian concept?
No. (?)
Marriage, however, is a religious concept. So I suppose, then, yes, it is also a Christian concept.Marriage predates religion as we record it. And it is not a religious concept. Matrimony is, marriage is not. Marriage is much less complex than matrimony and is a simple, straight forward, uncomplicated licensed arrangement of one man and one woman. There is nothing about forever, sex, children, the bedroom, happiness, love or anything else at all in marriage. Just as those things are not in hairdressing they are not in marriage. The state does not ask anything about any of those.
As for a partner being available for medical information, hospital visits, etc.... A medical power of attorney can be printed on line and notarized for a small fee. Businesses are free to insure any arrangement of partners they wish. No one bans people from cohabitation, multiple partners, or any other kind of arrangement that isn't clearly banned by law - i.e. pedophilia, bestiality, etc....
Marriage simply is a licensed man/woman partnership. Nothing more.Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship.
People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
No, marriage is not a Christian concept any more than bowling is a Christian concept.
I think part of the problem is that Christians are all being tarred by the same brush, so to speak. Just because we believe in the traditional family concept of one man and one woman does not mean that we hate all homosexuals. However, our religion is attacked and the beliefs that we hold are targeted as hate. Not all Christians act out of hate...and if they are acting out of hate then they are doing it while professing to be Christians but are not actually practicing their faith. The Christian faith is one of love and forgiveness. We are taught not to judge...lest we be judged. Not all Christians are protesting and rallying and name calling. Some of us have our convictions and feel the way we feel and are entitled to have an opinion the same as anyone in the GLBT community.
The Christian church as a whole is targeted and preachers attacked because they are openly saying that they don't agree with same sex marriage. They are saying that they won't marry two people of the same sex in their church because they feel strongly that it is wrong. It seems that the only way you are able to speak out on the issue is if you are speaking in favor of it and that doesn't seem fair either. My biggest problem with the whole thing now is that people are using Christianity as a scapegoat and as a whipping board whenever they feel that their rights are being stepped on.I agree with what you said, it is my understanding Muslims donot condone homosexuality but they donot come against them because they are afraid. Christians walk in love and turn the cheek so people try to trample us.
Dear God,
I pray you answer you speak like you did when Elijah came against the prophets of Baal. You tell us how you feel about these matters and speak clearly as you are not the author of confusion and peace be still in Jesus Name Amen!
Whether one man/one woman is "traditional" or "biblical" is a matter open to debate. But more importantly, laws in the US are not, nor should they be, based on the bible, therefore, using an interpretation of the bible as a basis for the legal definition of marriage is not constitutional.
And yet so many struggle with this simple fact. Never ceases to amaze me.
And churches should not feel forced to marry a same sex couple if it goes against their teaching. Thus the seperation between church and state. My concern with that, however, is that once it is legalized, and a same sex couple walks into their home church and requests to be married in the church and the pastor refuses because he does not believe that they should be married...is he then discriminating against the couple based on sexual orientation? What happens then? Say the couple parents and grandparents were married in that church and they are determined that they will be married in that church? Unfortunately it seems that there is always going to be issues surrounding this issue. Once one issue is resolved another will arise.
Churches are not forced to perform same sex marriages...ever... Churches do not have to marry anyone they do not want to marry.
No...but certain churches have been called out in the media lately because they chose to openly take a stance on the issue. They may not be forced to perform same sex marriages-but they should not be made to feel as though they are not allowed to take a stance on the issue.
They were called out for their stances on POLITICS... not on religion. I don't know of one gay person who wants to force any specific church to marry them... they want GOVERNMENT recognition. Therefore a church shouldn't be involved at all.
I agree with The At home Mom and you have one of the most important jobs in the world
Yeah, I think most churches won't do same-sex marriages, which is their right, but why deny it from a civil standpoint?
Nor are churches barred from recognizing for their own purposes some kind of unlicensed state in a "marriage" ceremony in that church. Churches do not license marriages only the government does and that license is for a man and a woman.
Not really, he is discriminating based on religious beliefs.
That same sex couple will need to find a new religion.
It isn't marriage transcends religion, region, culture, language, history - marriage has been in existence since before the Bible.
I thought this country was founded on biblical principles and our four fathers stood on the Bible is this not true. Why is " In God we trust" on money? Why is it we say " One nation under God" you can try to erase it but it is a reason this was all done. Why was prayer in the schools somebody believed in God or is this a delusion ? Tell me? I was told slave masters took their slaves to church. I read Harriet Tubman said God guided her North where did a slave whose ancestors were from Africa hear about God and catch a hold of faith?
Actually no it isn't. Many of the founders of the country weren't Christian...Some were deists and a couple really notible ones were leaning atheistic. Two of the first ten presidents went on to be instrumental in what is now the U.U. church and another of them took a razor blade to the bible.
Both were added to the paper money/pledge of allegiance in the late 1950's. It had a lot to do with the cold war and godless commies.
Lots of people believe in God... no one is arguing that. Prayer was traditionally in school because the only schools that operated free to the public were sponsored by churches. When education was socialized prayer eventually was phased out because it violated separation of church and state.
Not the best argument in the world there.... The slaves were converted to Christianity... largely against their will in the beginning... because it made them more pliable. At the time many whites believed that slavery was their God-given right. It made sense to convert their slaves to a religion that made them believe that their own skin color was a curse from God for something that happened with Noah's sons in Genesis. Still for many many generations "Christianity" among slaves was a bastardization of biblical ideas and tribal customs. It's actually kinda sad that most of that rich tribal culture was raped and bred out of African Americans. You can still see it's effects though in many ethnic churches... Black baptist churches spring to mind.Melissa,
were there any shootings in schools when prayer was allowed in the school houses can we get the facts on that.
It is storming her have to go but wasn't religion forced in the middle ages as well. Oh and I know about Shem Ham and Japheth but have to go the weather is bad right now. One thing about it when Christ came he made it possible for all who believe to receive study Paul's life God is not about color it is about the spirit. I and many blacks study the rich culture of Africa but many tragedies have occurred the wiping out of most of the Indians in America. The holocaust we can all overcome like Gabby Douglas just did and Frederick Douglas God Bless!Wait... what? There were no shootings in public schools when Sushi wasn't served either. Does that mean that the growing popularity of Sushi and it's inclusion in some school menus led to violence? How about the internet? There weren't many school shootings before the internet either... Is the internet to blame?
Huh?Prayer IS allowed in school! Kids pray all the freakin' time. The only thing that isn't allowed is school-led prayer, and for good reason. Besides the separation of church & state thing, which prayers should the kids say? My son had an Indian teacher in elementary school. Should the kids say a Hindu prayer? He had a couple of classmates who were Muslim, and a teacher who wore a pentagram pendant. Still want school-led prayer? The school shooting thing is almost funny. Kids at Columbine were praying when they were shot (no comment), so...
"I was told slave masters took their slaves to church." "Took" them to church, I dunno, but they had their masters' religion forced on them, and the Bible was used to justify slavery.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
LOL! I love this classic stuff in which the perpetrators and protagonists claim to be the victims.
You are for denying people who love each other the right to get married. It's none of your business if people can get married or not. The US is not based on biblical law... You can believe what you wish but you have no right to tell people they cannot get married.
So, it's okay for you to force your beliefs on everyone but when people rail against it they are the bullies and forcing you to believe something.Please refer to an early post about the "forcing of beliefs". I think you missed the point. Or rather, you exemplified it perfectly. Because I stated my beliefs you attacked and stated that they were being forced on you. So again we go back to my point that you overlooked- Why is that you can only speak out on the issue if you are in favor? If you are not in favor then you are FORCING your beliefs? That is a perfect exampl of why people are not capable of having a calm and mature conversation about this issue.
It may not be my business whether someone else gets married but I DO have a right to vote. Voters will decide this issue...so perhaps rather than attacking everyone who does not believe the same things as you(just saying you in general not you personally), you should try to educate people and reach them in another way. All I'm saying is that attacking a person religion is not the way to win their vote when most people hold very dear to them their belief or lack thereof in God.You are the one who brought up forcing people to marry gay people. I was not attacking... I was disagreeing with you...there is a difference...
Voting against people having the right to get married is forcing your beliefs on others...
And I was not saying that specifically YOU were doing that...
People in countries that already allow gay marriage really can't believe this is such a big deal in the US which has always been put forward as the freest country in the world.
Marriage has nothing to do with love. The government doesn't ask if love is involved. What is love? Do you want the government deciding what love means? Can one have a loving relationship without marriage? Can marriage exist without love?
Marriage is a licensed condition between a man and a woman with nothing to do with love.so if a married person cheats on their spouse we need to change the law so they can feel comfortable committing adultery oh and change one of the ten commandments thou shall not commit adultery cause we are bigots if we agree with the Bible that adultery is wrong. If I donate money to organizations that fight against adultery I am supporting a hate organization that is what you are saying
Do you think adultery should be made illegal, or should it be handled by the parties involved? (It's not illegal now, BTW) I don't think anyone is in favor of cheating on one's spouse. Yeah, lots of people cheat, but I don't think you could call them advocates for it.
Hello , I just wanted to say I am new to the community and this is my first hub I am replying to . So, show me love ....lol Anyway, I just heard not to long ago about this Chick-Fill-A debate, isn't the statement that the CEO of the company made an act of freedom of speech. Which is in the constitution of the United States. I understand people have beliefs and when people express them beliefs openly it will always cause debate or conflict, because to many people want everyone else to stand behind the same beliefs that they may have. It's doesn't sound like this company is really hurting anybody at all ,and by what this hub is saying , it sounds that they provide decent service. I never ate there , but I never heard of any restaurant telling you have a blessed day after they serve you your meal. That is so rare but it would be nice if most restaurants would say that. Just for the record I am not against homosexuals or even gay marriage,but I believe people have the right to express their beliefs , as long as it doesn't physically hurt anyone and they don't force it on anyone. I could understand if the owner of this company was trying to force their christian beliefs on the gay communities , but it sounds like that isn't the case here.
Welcome to HubPages, but what you wrote above isn't a "hub" ... it's a post in the forum. Just sayin'.
he said that this was the first hub that he was replying to
Has anyone on this thread read Christoph Reilly's latest hub? Chik-fil-A and the Fall of Western Civilization? http://christophreilly.hubpages.com/hub … vilization
After reading some of the posts here and various places online, it's rather apparent that this is not about speaking against a community.
Where is the line drawn?
Maybe Mark will come up with another drawing.: (nice one above, btw)Oh. I just read it. Didn't realise he had written such an excellent page.
Drawing you say... unfortunately msot of my recent ones seem to be a little on the obscene side so...
I agree with Jon Stewart's take on the issue:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … ities.html
It's the second video on the page.
I'm curious about something: When Obama was against gay marriage, was he so bashed by the left?? I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, but I do believe in freedom of speech and thought, even when I don't agree with the speaker/thinker.Perhaps you missed it
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archi … -pick.aspx
The difference is who the Press supports. Obama is sacred, Republicans profane. That is the soul difference in what is and is not reported and how it is covered.
Don't support it. Don't go to gay weddings. Don't send them gifts.
Go to church. Read your book. Enjoy your life. Let other people enjoy their lives. That's all these people are asking for. For religious people to butt out.
When you support the movement to tell people how they can live their lives, you are not championing your right to religion or your right to be opposed to gay marriage. You are championing the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do.Actually, no they are asking for something very different than "to just be left alone." They are asking for a transformation of a known and understood word be transformed into a new word with a new definition through the mechanism of the court.
There is no prohibition on a religious marriage of any kind - even polygamy exists in America today - though not recognized by any civil authority, why? Because what a religious group calls marriage is immaterial to the civil, secular licensing of marriage.
If a church wants to perform "marriages" that are a man to a man or a woman to a woman the secular, civil authority does not say - "Your church cannot recognize that relationship." However, civil, secular marriage is a man and a woman and therefore such a relationship could not be licensed.
No one is barred from marrying.So you are saying you would be perfectly happy if we struck the WORD "marriage" from the civil system and just called all legal parings, "legal parings" or something. People could go get "married" in a church or whatever, and the whole issue, since this is just a word thing apparently, would just go away. "Marriage" could mean whatever any church or organization wanted it to mean, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, woman/duck whatever and everyone would just be happy as could be.
I think I like that. And schools and hospitals and all that stuff would be required by law to recognized any "legal union" or "legal paring" and would never again have to think about "married" people at all.
I like it. I hate to give in to a bunch of dictatorial zealots forcing a whole society to bend to their religion in a country supposedly secular, but if they are going to be so unfathomably childish and uncompromising on the level of a single WORD having meaning, well, then we should accept their weakness, given how many of them there are and just accommodate them for the sake of moving the country forward. I think I will write this suggestion up and send it to my Congressmen. From hence forth, there will be no such thing as "marriage" in the eyes of the law or the government. Only legal unions.If any union can then be a legal union as long as those being united are of consenting age and not defrauding or evading the law than everyone would be happy and society would be perfect - at least in this regard.
I do not believe that to be the case, but it is where we must go if we undefine civil marriage and that is the direction we are going. Mother/son, father/son. brother/brother, sister/brother/brother/brother/father, etc.... Anything else is discriminatory - in that it elevates one type of relationship over others as preferable to society and civilization. Though ample evidence suggests man/woman civil marriage coupled with religious marriage produces the best results for women and children, it is discrimination and therefore, regardless of the consequences should be removed.
We can pretend anything we like. There is ample information about the benefits of marriage as it is currently defined. There is a monumentally long history of marriage as it is currently defined. There is a solid commitment to its preservation by the electorate. Children do best in intact man/woman marriages - even if the man and woman aren't exactly living wedded bliss.
The objective evidence suggests that all the alternatives are less preferable. But let's undefine it, water it down, reduce its value and eliminate it. What's the worst that could happen? The current social structure is eroding marriage and its value. "Homosexual marriage" is merely the next great counter-cultural attack that will undo thousands of years of culture. But what the hell, communism is brilliant, the French Revolution turned out well. Undoing in the name of undoing seems to always work out for the best. BEST of all we can pretend it is about freedom and equality.Ah, so what you're saying is that it's NOT just a word thing.
Funny, because a little while ago, it was just a word thing. Y'all got to at least get your story straight.
At least the super far right zealot types just come out and say, "JEEZUS SAYS ITS A ABERRAYSHUN!" They at least have the courage to be honest and admit they want their religion to govern everyone else.I do not want my religion to govern anyone. Conversely, I do not want to be governed by close minded bigots who despise faith in God and openly discriminate against it.
Is it perfectly acceptable that your God and your religion is bigoted and discriminates against us?
It does not discriminate against anyone. God is not a respecter of persons. All are equal in the Good Lord's eyes. There is no male and female before God. Many are not enlightened or savvy about the spiritual realm. They even deny that it exists. This leaves them groping along the wall like a blind man who cannot find the door. They are trapped in the prison of their flesh where wisdom is limited by voluntary ignorance.
LOL!
Yes, I know, that is exactly what He teaches his followers, too.
And, you are enlightened and savvy?
Well, when we turn to the physical laws of the universe, such a realm cannot exist. Please show us how and where it exists?
Then, it would behoove you to enlighten us all so we so are not groping and ignorant.
It's a good thing that's not happening. I'd be opposed to that too.
Are you in denial, or are you insidiously crafty? You are trying to shove your religion (or lack thereof) down my throat. I am gagging on it.
Well as fun as that would be to turn that back on you, I'll take the high road. And I'm not shoving anything down your throat. I have no religion, and in fact, I'm mainly opposed to dogma and the assertion by those who wield it that they have any better insight into the supernatural than anyone else. That does not mean I don't at least hold out hope that there may be something greater than the single experience of any human being. I just don't pretend like I know what that might be.
Apparently, "or lack thereof" did not make it into your post. I do not want to be governed by your perceptions or opinions at all. Why follow a blind man into a ditch? You are in no position or condition to be dispensing wisdom. You do not know peace. You are being tossed about by the waves. I ride them.
Just like disagreeing with you is not fomenting hate, it is also not "subversive rhetoric" to hold an opinion contrary to yours and voice it. You know, I mostly just feel sorry for you. You make all this brave talk about riding waves and not being tossed about, but there's no tempest here. Your bravery is fictive, because there is no nemesis but the one you create for yourself. I genuinely feel bad for you. It must be awful to live in a world like that, with people trying to get you all the time. But, for what it's worth, I'm not your enemy. I don't hate you. I'm not trying to lead you into a ditch. I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. I'm just not agreeing with your position on this issue.
Marriage transcend religion and the current social pageant. It transcends country, time, culture. Marriage is fundamental to civilization. It has a specific meaning, a meaning so specific that to change the meaning is to undo the thing. Once one says any union is a marriage than there is no marriage.
It isn't a mere word. It is a specific social institution that is inextricably tied to its meaning. No one asks anything about what licensed civil marriage means to the man and woman who are applying for the license. It is still very simple no one is barred from marrying.
If one reads carefully, they will find no reference to sexuality, reproduction, sex, etc...in anything I have said. I have only said, that marriage is clearly defined and no one is barred from marrying.
How many gays have married an are already divorced many spoke against heterosexuals and cannot stay married themselves.
You talk about Christians but this is how you operate I would never wish cancer on anyone.
Did you see what Roseanne Barr said? "Anyone who eats Sh**-Fil-A deserves to get the cancer.
Like · · Share · 375,91869,95025,103 · August 1 at 6:54pm ·Just like God isn't moderating the forums... Roseanne Barr isn't posting on them.
You're using something Roseanne said as a judgement on how others are responding to this topic? I've noticed you stereotype and generalize a lot here. It makes your point less effective when you do that.
Why are you accusing me of "operating" like Rosanne Barr? She is a loudmouth of such famous proportions she continues to be a "celebrity" despite having not done anything of significance in twenty five years. She stays in the public eye by the brute force of her own absurdity.
Have you read anything I've posted? I have no need of saying stupid, hateful crap like that. In fact, it's stopping people from saying stupid hateful crap on BOTH sides that I am striving for more than anything.
You need to pull back the reflexive defensiveness a little bit there, or I'll have to start accusing you of operating like Thomas de Torquemada or even just good old Pastor Terry Jones. I mean, if we're not going to read, not going to think before we respond, why not just commit to the farthest fringes of mindless rhetoric, eh?Shh, she probably doesn't know who Torquemada was.
Hopefully she does not think of Wikipedia as a tool of Satan.
You mean the statement, "How can you be gay and believe in monogamy"? Is that what you are talking about when you refer to Torquemada? I know people personally who are gay and monogamous. I do not agree with absurdity either. I just believe the Bible should not be changed.
Not the comfy chair!!!
(I hope you get that or I will look stupid
)You have officially won the argument...
Anyone who quotes MP wins the argument.You are probably right... but it HAS been educational.
chick fil a has good chicken. nuff said. this whole thing ruins our meal. and i dont blame chick fil a for that
If CHic Fil A is bigoted so is Perez Hilton. Prez Hilton constantly displays vitriol toward women but no one does anything. He called Carrie PerJean a dumb -b*** for disagreeing with gay marriage. A few years ago, he drew certain men's body parts around Miley Cyrus's face calling her a slut. Where is the backlash?
Probably rife and lively in threads or fora discussing THAT issue, and rightfully nowhere near here, but for your post.
I fully support everyone's right to express their opinion but I do believe that there was no need to protest Chic-Fil-A restaurants. It seems this only helped turn out more support for the franchises than protesters and exposed the company ideals to those that might not have known about them...possibly resulting in even more customers and support for the company.
This is in the article no name is given for the organization so how do we know if it is factual and if an organization doesnot agree with gays are they haters. If i say I don't agree with you does it mean I hate you. There are people who were gay who are straight and have not went back so is that evil?
1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.Statistics say most gays earn the higher income and many gay people use their money and influence to force people to agree with their life style is this right?
Nope. Most gay's don't really give a crap if anyone agrees with their lifestyle... least of all Christians. They would just like to be able to marry. There is a difference.
I really think you cannot make this statement as you cannot speak for all gays and I personally can say I know gays who try to force their beliefs on heterosexuals and if you do not agree they will ostracize you and this is a fact with some gay people. Do you think it is bigotry if heterosexuals want to raise their children to view a family like the Bible that a man and woman are a family? If they say to their children we do not hate anyone but we believe this way. Oh and in the schools there are posse's and gangs of gays that do put pressure on other kids to belong do your research now that is happening in schools . Many gay girls in schools are very aggressive. Let's give all the facts here
1. I said most not all. I'm sure gay militants exist. I do KNOW however that they are not the norm... and I'm guessing I likely know more gays than you do.
Bigotry? You know I'm not sure. I think I would call it close-minded indoctrination instead.
See... there is the indoctrination thing again. Your children should not be inclusive in "we". "I" may believe something but I have NEVER taught my children what "We" believe. "They" have their very own opinions... I don't tell them what to think.
You go ahead and give me those facts then. Links would be appreciated....hellooooooo? An order of facts with a side of links, pleeeease!
And the silence was deafening.I wonder why the Bible says train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart. I think as parents we need to teach our children spiritually, culturally and naturally. You are saying that what you have discussed on these pages you will not teach to your child or children. I just did a Bible study with my children and had prayer with them. I wonder where your children get their opinions from?
I did not have children to turn them into carbon copies of myself. They have fully functioning brains and the ability to choose their spiritual path all for themselves. It is not up to me to make that decision. No I will not teach my children anything that we have discussed on these pages... with the exception of the historical facts that YOU didn't seem to know... Religion is not in my curriculum.... anywhere... It is not my job to brainwash my children. It is my job to give them the tools to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
As to where my children get their opinions from... They use those aforementioned fully functioning brains to explore all options and then choose the one that they feel is right. It's amazing. They generally do the right thing when you teach them how to examine information and apply it to their own life. The upside is that they are doing what they personally have decided is right and not just following some rule book like robots with no true understanding of morals.Now all Christians are robots! And their children are robots! I think this hate stuff is in reverse. All of my children are awesome human beings and use their brains very well to God be the glory!
What historical facts do you speak of?Nope. Not ALL Christians. I am a Christian and I don't really consider myself a robot. I WOULD if I just said "cause the bible said so" and didn't think any further...
Nope. Just the children of parents who answer every "Why?" With "Because God said so" and the children who have had their parents beliefs shoved down their tiny little throats since before they could walk. Just those whose parents have assumed that their children will want to be Christians when they grow up and so they fill their developing brains with dogma and brainwash them into a faith. Those children who are Christian because they have no idea that there is an alternative because their parents were too busy selfishly creating clones rather than allowing their children the right to be people instead of converts in God's great pyramid scheme.
You would. Next time don't ask where my children get their opinions from if you don't want an answer. I simply gave you an answer... If you think my children being allowed to form their own opinions is hateful then so be it.
Oh... so they've memorized scripture and can quote back to you what YOU think it means?
The forefathers all being Christian (false) The country formed on Christian values (false) That Harriet Tubman magically found God rather than being indoctrinated by her owner(false) The pledge of allegiance... the In God we trust on our money.... all that stuff that you obviously think was God's work...
THANK YOU, Melissa. I totally concur with your parenting premise. You are what can aptly be described as a mature and democratic parent. Such parents assert that their children are individual beings who have their own personalities. Mature and democratic parents are of the belief that they do not OWN their children but act as teachers and guides to their children. Such children will mature into intelligent, thinking, and highly successful individuals. Children raised in such homes are the less likely to become and/or develop prejudices against people who are not like them.
It is the authoritarian parent who raise their children to be EXACT REPLICAS of them who have children who tend to be the most prejudicial against those who are unlike them. Children raised by such parents either become mindless automatons mimicking their parents' ideology or highly rebellious antiestablishmentarians. Anyway, it is the duty of parents to raise children who think for themselves. To paraphrase author Kahlil Gibran in THE PROPHET, your children are not your children even though they came through you. Your children are individuals expressing their uniqueness. The BEST thing a parent can impart to a child is SELF-MOTIVATION.God created us in His own image so we can know Him personally and have a joy-filled life. He did not make us as robots to automatically love and obey Him, but gave us a will and a freedom of choice. Since the beginning of time, we have chosen to disobey God and go our own willful way. We still make this choice today. This results in separation from God and ends in misery.
I am going to stop responding because I do not hate gays I just believe the Bible should be upheld and I will not continue discussing children because it is a sensitive matter. I have five children and four have attended college already and are good people. I have a life and this going back and forth is exhausting wish you all the best. I still have my beliefs and stick with them . Good night!
"It is not my job to brainwash my children..."
So what you are saying here is that if we teach our children about religion because we are Christians and we choose to raise our children on Christian principles that we are brainwashing our children? But yet you stand there and say the Christians are the ones who are hate-minded? It never fails to amaze me that because Christians don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle, the entire way they live their life is questioned and scrutinized and attacked. "Brainwash"...I think not. I raise my children with values and morals and with the tools that they will need to become OUTSTANDING members of society. I teach them a faith that will help them to grow and flourish DESPITE narrow-minded people who think that because THEY don't believe in God no one else should. I teach them about honouring their mother and father, loving their neighbor as they do themselves, doing unto other as they would have them do unto them, and turning the other cheek when faced with people who attack them because of their principles. The God my children know is a loving God and because I teach them about that God they are better able to emotionally handle the pressures that they face in this life. I have never once openly spoken to my 6 year old son about homosexuality. We don't discuss it in our home and we don't allow people to discuss adult conversations around our children. Yet when my son is standing in a store and a man leans over and kisses another man or a woman and woman do the same, he tells me that he doesn't like that and that "isn't it supposed to be a boy and girl?" So...just because we choose to raise our children in a faith that does not condone homosexuality does not mean that we are "brainwashing" our children.
Don't sit and spout off about how Christians are "brainwashing" their children because we are teaching them our faith. This is something that has existed in many culures, in many countries, over many centuries.
Perhaps before you throw terms out like that you should consider the fact that you DON'T know EVERYONE and you don't know everything. . Perhaps you have had a bad experience with Christians in the past. Don't presume to know the hearts of all Christians and then stand and say that you are fighting for equal rights and for everyone to be treated equal.
We know where we stand in our Lords eyes. We know that there will come a time when Christians are persecuted simply because we are Christians. In spite of that I will continue to raise my children in that faith and if they grow up one day to say that they don't agree with homosexuality it will be because they have made that decision for themselves with THEIR fully functioning minds"Nice rant...and it might have meant something if I wasn't a Christian. Since I am all it means is that you assume you are 1. Speaking for all Christians and 2. Assuming that since I disagree that I am not a Christian.
And it's still not my job to brainwash my children. If you think that it is your job then go right ahead. They are your children. God gave me free-will to choose my own faith... I'm simply returning the favor to my own children. If you don't feel that is the right decision then by all means don't make the same choice.The difference is that TheAtHomeMom has scriptural support, whereas you do not.
When you teach your children it is not brain washing. I guess your children eat with their fingers at the table or did you instruct them how to use a knife and fork and put a napkin in their lap but while you are at it also teach them to use chop sticks when eating at a Sushi restaurant as I have taught mine or is that brain washing. You can also teach them that certain cultures do eat with their fingers and it is appropriate to do so if you are eating with them or is this brainwashing. how did your children get potty trained or learn their ABC's? If you ask my children they will tell you how they have seen God work in my life and their lives. My children could give you example after example of why God is Good!
Teaching someone table manners and how to potty is a little different than teaching them that a book is going to rule every decision in their lives forever and if the disagree with it they are going to hell forever.
Teaching my children the alphabet is teaching them how to learn for themselves. It's teaching them something provable and concrete. It is also not teaching them my OPINION -which is what my religion is... my opinion-
Nice try but your argument is simplistic and compares apples and oranges. Opinions are not fact and shouldn't be forced upon someone else. I can prove that an A exists. I have no way of proving that God does... and you don't either.
Melissa you rant the athome Mom gave very good points
Arguing with you is pointless and no matter what I say you are going to find a way to come back with something to try and make me feel as though I am not doing my job as a parent. Unless you know me or my children...you assume too much. You have posted negative responses to half the people on this thread. I am thinking you come back each day looking to do the same.
And if you actually open your eyes and look at what I wrote and use YOUR "fully functioning mind" then you would see that I repeated over and over again that this is how "I" choose to raise my children. Never once did I say that I was speaking for every Christian.
Unfortunately when you find someone who is devoting their time to looking for ways to antagonize people over the internet, there is no way to argue with those people.
FURTHERMORE, I hope that your children have chosen to be MUCH more open-minded and considerate of other people and their beliefs than you are. I guess in this instance it is a good thing that you don't "brainwash" your children.
I won't be commenting anymore on your posts because I can see that you are determined to turn everyones words around and frankly you are annoying. I will let God be my defense. Arguing with you brings me down to your childish level and I deal with children all day...I don't come onto an adult forum to deal with them here. Food for thought: If I were gay...I would rather not have someone, such as you, defending my way of life. Your attitude isn't helping the gay community. AT ALL!!!Aww complain about being attacked in the same post you attack someone else in...
Which you Velda and Kathleen have been doing this entire thread...
Sorry feel no pity for you.
Mostly because if your opinions matched mine you would be cheering me on.
I already acknowledged that they were your children and you could raise them anyway you see fit. I just said I wouldn't do it to MY kids because I view it as brainwashing. It's my opinion and it's not hateful at all for me to express my opinion... right?Please, don't quit replying! Those of use without 2039309248234 posts want you here. Your opinion matters to me, don't let internet bullies win. I appreciate all you have to say to my topic, even if I don't agree with it.
If you have daughters DON'T teach them Gen. 30, please!
Oh I LIKE that one! It shows that God supports and even blesses surrogate pregnancy.
So if you and your partner cant have a child for some reason *coughsgayscoughs* you now have biblical support for alternative ways of reproduction.
Oh and it appears he also blesses male prostitution... as long as you pay in plants.
No, you don't teach your children about religion, you teach them about Christianity, one particular religion. If you tell them that Christianity is the ultimate truth, you are brainwashing them.
As long as the neighbors aren't a gay married couple.
Absolutely!
Yes, the indoctrination of children into religions has been going on for centuries in many countries.
No, it is because they have been brainwashed to disagree with homosexuality.You would have her brainwash her children to accept your world view. The problem with that? You are a proponent and purveyer of unenlightened, bigoted, erroneous opinions.
I attended a church in Charlotte NC where we for several weeks studied different religions week after week. You cannot lump all Christians into one barrel. And Christians have done many good things in this world.
Homosexuals are the ones doing the indoctrination they want everyone to agree with them and if you don't you are the enemy.But it's ok to lump all homosexuals into one barrel?
Gays and lesbians have done many good things in this world too.
What exacly is the homosexual doctrine?You are making such a presumptive statement! zzzzzzzzzz!
I agree! You said it well and continue to fight the good fight of Faith!
Well said. I am in full agreement. Thank you for sharing.
And you will be okay if they grow up to be gay or if they come to believe that gays getting married is a good thing?
I'm guessing if seeing two gays kissing sends her into moral apoplexy then her kids being gay would just about end it for her.
I'm not sure when her kids asked why she didn't say that two people who love each other sometimes kiss. No moral judgement or lessons needed and the answer would be age appropriate for any kid young enough to comment.If they do, it will represent an apostasy over which the whole congregation will weep, lamenting their collective failure and supporting the poor parents whose children have doomed themselves to eternal damnation for showing love and compassion to disgusting, abominable sinners. They will dab gently at the corners of their eyes, wiping away the tears and sighing in patronizing resignation as they watch their fallen children become distant and removed, pushed away because of their unwillingness to show the proper degree of hate towards those damn gays.
If my children grow up to be gay then I will love them the same way that I have always loved them. That is where people seem to misunderstand Christians. As I stated in an earlier post...just because I do not agree with homosexuality does not mean that I HATE homosexuals. There is a very big difference between those two things. I would love my children regardless...however that choice for their lifestyle will not make me agree with homosexuals. I am able to seperate my beliefs from how I treat others. Shame that more people can't do that.
Do you have some evidence to back up your outrageous claims? I find your opinions very ironic, coming from an apparently African-American woman.
What does my race or color have to do with it, most of you on here posting comments will not even show what you really look like. Marriage is an institution of a man and woman and there should be another way for homosexuals to obtain their benefits without destroying the foundation of marriage. I love everybody and that is my opinion.
Statements like "Many gay girls in schools are very aggressive," are prejudicial and based on stereotypes and anecdotal evidence. One would think you would want to avoid doing the sorts of things that you presumably have been the target of. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that the actions of one or even a few of a group don't necessarily mean every member of a group behaves that way.
I am also not saying you're not entitled to your opinion - you most certainly are - but please don't expect that opinion to go unchallenged, especially when making extraordinary claims without supporting evidence.
I also fail to see how same sex marriage destroys the foundations of marriage.I love that "I also fail to see how same sex marriage destroys the foundations of marriage." line. My own same sex attraction hasn't even "destroyed the foundation" of my OWN marriage.
You're writing a hub about that, right? RIGHT?!?! :-)
Nope
It would be the most boring hub in the world anyway...
"I like girls and my marriage is fine." is about the extent of the story. The most provocative thing is my husband occasionally laughing at me when he catches me looking. I do the same to him though so all is good.
Do you have evidence? Please specify the claim so I can respond adequately
Well, perhaps the protesters did kinda shoot themselves in the feet in engendering just the opposite (majority) reaction than they wanted or expected (?!). Still, exposure/full disclosure is always best (if not sometimes mandated). If these protests served, even secondarily, to educate and/or alert the public, I think that that is a good thing.
So, you say this at one point...
And this the next...
So, again, you are waffling. Which is fine. I realize your real point is an emotional one, so, that's cool. Just makes it hard to have a focused conversation when I don't know which parts of what you say I should respond to and which parts you're going retract and redefine if I poke too many holes in them.
From what I'm seeing there, I think we are still good to just remove the word marriage from the legal lexicon, and call it "legal union." Then all the people who think that this spiritual or whatever magic thing you are talking about is the essence of how children must be raised (and quite disregarding every culture that doesn't do marriage the way you discuss...or ignoring all the abysmal misery that has taken place and been protected by law in cases of unbridled abuse of that sacred institution of yours) can go to their favorite church or other institution that they feel they need approval from to sanctify their breeding rituals and get "married." They can hang the certificate proudly on their wall and say, "Look, Mom, I done it like you said I should," and everyone will be happy.When we discuss marriage we are not discussing religious marriage. There is no prohibition against a church performing what ever ceremony it wants to call a marriage. There is merely the inability to get a marriage license if the following criteria are not met: (it is no harder than that)
you are assuming something not in what I have written [b] that I am in any way discussing religious marriage - beyond positing that a religion can do what it wants and call it marriage and therefore it seems useless to continue but I will.
1) a man and a woman apply for a license and pay a fee
2) neither is currently married to someone else
3)both are of the legal age
4)they are not closely related
5)they are not seeking to evade or defraud
To reemphasize the point that I have been repeating and you keep missing
No one is barred from marrying.Nope, didn't miss that. Responded to it twice. Will go ahead and respond again and maybe you'll slow down enough this time to catch it:
1. YOU said it's about a word "marriage."
2. Then you said "marrying" is something a church can do however they want.
3. Then you said that a "marriage" license is a state thing, bringing the thing you said is a church-only thing back into the demesnes of the state.
So, when you say "a church can marry anyone they want" and THEN you say "it is MERELY the MARRIAGE license" that they can't get unless they follow the rules you have decided should be mandated for everyone, you are contradicting yourself. HOWEVER, as I said before, why don't we just DROP the "marriage" adjective off of the license.
So, that way, the "word" that has you so in a tizzy can be removed from the government and legal system, since that seems to be the problem. ANYONE can get a "legal union license" and that will be the only license the representative governments that serve all people in the U.S. can issue.
So, it would work like this, based on your model:
1) two people apply for a license and pay a fee
2) neither is currently in a legal union to someone else
3) both are of the legal age
4) they are not closely related
5) they are not seeking to evade or defraud
Then everyone is happy. None of them evil gays get to use your sacred word in the eyes of the law, and the rest of us can finally live in peace without having to continue to try to explain what "freedom," "equality" and "separation of church and state" mean. To me this seems the only way this issue will ever be solved given how stubborn and uncompromising the far ends of the debate both are.Responded to it twice. {b} clearly? concisely? precisely? or from a muddled and emotional misconception rooted in the false notion that what I am arguing is "homophobic?"[/b]
1. YOU said it's about a word "marriage." A clearly defined, long held, transcendent institution that some are using every means to undefine and by undefining, destroy.
2. Then you said "marrying" is something a church can do however they want.
---- a church can call what ever it wants marriage---- separate from the civil definition and recognize it within its own community --- religious marriage is separated from civil marriage now - note applying, paying for and signing the state issued marriage license - are still required of those seeking civilly license marriage
3. Then you said that a "marriage" license is a state thing, bringing the thing you said is a church-only thing back into the demesnes of the state. Catholics and Jews ( and many others no doubt) were barred from legal marriage but were married, none the less, within their own faith community
The issue raging in the country has nothing to do with a religious definition of marriage, but rather the civil one.
So, that way, the "word" that has you so in a tizzy can be removed from the government and legal system,[b[ since marriage transcends all legal systems, governments, countries, ethnicity, history, societies and cultures, marriage is a foundational institution of all human civilization - its replacement is being manufactured[/b]
None of them evil gays get to use your sacred word you presume too much - I have said nothing about homosexuality except to say - no one asks if you are homosexual when applying for a license and no one is barred from marrying based on anything other than not meeting the existing criteria
"freedom," "equality" no one is barred from being married
"separation of church and state" non sequitur and another topic all together - "separation of church and state is not in the Constitution and has little to do with marriage given those things explained above. We have also seen that a church can be compelled by law to abandon its own, well established, long held moral teachings. How long before Catholic priests are compelled to perform homosexual unions?
To me this seems the only way this issue will ever be solved...
it cannot be settled for long because it is not about the fashion of the moment but about civilization - the settlement you would want, within the existing mechanism is being regularly circumvented by courts and hostile political forces to whom the rule of law means nothing."Tradition" is a famous example of logical fallacy. For tens of thousands of years, slavery was a tradition on every continent across the planet. People argued for the continuation of it as a natural part of the larger social order, and a primary pillar in those arguments was tradition.
Polygamy is a tradition that is far, far older than monogamy. Far older. By thousands of years, possibly tens of thousands of years, although the idea of "marriage" starts to get pretty ambiguous if you go back more than a few thousand years tops, and even that requires some creative anthropological interpretation.
Term-marriages are an ancient tradition. Old men often pay money to the family of little girls, sometimes as young as 5 and 7, and the children are sent to spend a fixed period of time with their loving new 50 year old husband for a while. Then they are returned to their families, broken and valueless having been deflowered. That's a tradition.
In some families, incest and rape is a silent tradition.
Just because something has "always been done that way" (or because someone has decided to ignore all the instances where something hasn't been done that way and declare that "it's always been that way" anyway) doesn't mean it's the only way something can or should be done.
You are mired in logical fallacy that disables you from recognizing the reality of THIS time, here and now.
Worse, with the glib comment of calling it the "fashion of the moment" you dismiss millions of real people. It's so casual, so off-handed. That is arrogance on a most bewildering scale. It's frightening really.A response that is rife with emotion and barely factual, pretending authority. We're done.
A response that is rife with evasion and pretends authority by trying to dismiss it.
Hardly a surprise given the fallacious and ever-shifting line of your arguments so far. We were done seeking anything that approximates a genuine solution to a real problem when you first started typing.
It has a specific meaning, a meaning so specific that to change the meaning is to undo the thing. Once one says any union is a marriage than there is no marriage.
It isn't a mere word. It is a specific social institution that is inextricably tied to its meaning.
Hardly waffling and hardly an emotional point - we frequently accuse others of that which we are guilty.
----- I poke too many holes in them---- I have yet to see a reasoned hole poked in what I have been writing - If you can bring your superior reasoning to bare, please innumerate the irrefutable points of logic you have presented.
I think we are still good to just remove the word marriage from the legal lexicon, and call it "legal union." -- so you would accomplish this through? You would dispose of the measurable and varifiable social good of the current social, civil - civilizing, marriage for a heretofore undeveloped idea - that always works.
Manufactured institutions are very different than evolved one in one major regard - they always fail. As the French, Communists, Nazis and every other statist revolutionary movement that sought to replace civilization with Utopia can demonstrate. To seek a revolutionary replacement for evolved social institutions is to pursue chaos. One need only look at the decaying civility, the treatment of women and children to understand that the direction in which social, civil society is moving is horribly flawed.
What successful civilization or culture practices marriage that isn't a man and a woman licensed or permitted by the social, civil order? Islam? Stuck in the 7th century Muslims practice polygamy, modern ones who live in modern cultures practice marriage in the civil, social order, marriage that is defined as a man and a woman"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
—William ShakespeareThe problem is you will not be the only one casting a vote
They hate homosexuals who cares, they are people they just like the same sex, that would be like the owner of Krogers saying he hates white people. It's a simple fix, stop buying their product. You can buy good chicken at K.F.C. Popeyes and i'm sure there are mass more places. Though he had the right to say what he did, he was wrong in doing so by infringing on their rights as human beings. Stop going their and holding "kiss ins" that's not helping it's just making the judgemental more angry. Keep on fighting!
They stand for what they believe in. I respect that. I wouldn't pretend to be something I am not to please other people. Being closed on Sundays is because they believe it to be the day of the Sabbath, which is not working, rest and a day to honor God. I personally believe its the seventh day (Saturday) but either way, I see nothing wrong with a person opening a restaurant with their own moral values in place. The only people that would be offended are the ones that aren't grounded in what they believe in. Its not like they are saying we will not serve atheists, Buddhist or homosexuals. They serve their food to everyone.
My Mother is Seven day Adventist her Sabbath is Saturday mine is Sunday. I respect my Mother's beliefs. I agree with what you say and I will eat at chick-fil-a and KFC.
Take care!
I think the problem is people keeping viewing it as them vs us. They seem unable to put themselves in another's shoes and try to understand that they really are no different, both sides are just human beings.
I would kindly ask that people replying to my topic to please quit bashing eachother over their personal beliefs.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I POSTED THIS. PEOPLE ARE BASHING [Chick-fil-A] FOR THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS.
If anyone can give me a GOOD example why it is okay to hate Chick-fil-A for not supporting gays, then please, post away. I am not interested in reading people bashing other people over what they teach their children or what they believe marriage is.LMAO...
Sucks right? Sorry once you open a thread you have no control over where it goes. Good luck on future endeavors.Wow...
How in the world was that a hateful statement?"Laugh my ass off" in response to something anyone says cannot really be interpreted in many other ways aside from "what your saying is a piece of crap, and I find it funny, so funny in fact that I laughed my butt cheeks off, that you would even propose such a thing."
Also, in response to pretty much ALL of your replies to my thread.Actually it was more of a rueful laugh at thinking that any conversation started on an internet forum is going to stay on topic for more than 20 or so posts.
If you choose to take it personally then have at it.
None of my replies in this thread were hateful... but once again if you choose to think that was then have at it.
I personally don't choose to take everything said as directly relating to me so it never really offends me on a personal level. I find my life a bit more theatrics-free that way.Ah, shifting the blame, are we? You have said some less-than-kind things to others on this thread. That may be my judgement, however the people whom you directed your comments (particularly about the brainwashing of children) might consider them personal attacks.
Tell me, Melissa, how many of your 4000+ posts have not been about telling someone they are wrong? You joined 19 months ago. That is an average of 214 posts per month. 7 posts per day. That is a lot of posting. That is a lot of opinion. Certainly you can appreciate having an opinion. And, here you are, judging other people on their opinions.By finding an attempt to keep an internet forum on topic humorous?
Hurt feelings much?
And if they consider them personal attacks then they are free to report them.
And I tell people I think they are wrong all the time... that's what debate is. Then they tell me they think I am wrong... which is also what debate is.
Of course I judge people by their opinions. That's what people do. There isn't really another viable reason to judge people. That's not judging a book by it's cover... it's judging it by it's contents. Judging people because they are homosexual THAT's judging a book by it's cover.
I will give you THE reason people are doing it if you really want it. It's very simple, and if you understand human nature, which you can see at work in this thread, at least some facets of it, you should not need much more of a reply. Here goes:
It is okay to boycott [you called it "hate"] Chik-fil-a for not supporting gay rights if you care passionately about the issue.
It's really simple. Chik-Fil-A came out and stated a political opinion. As you can see in this forum, politics incite all kinds of reactions. Having emotions is part of being a human. It is okay to be human. Therefore it is okay to have an emotional reaction to someone who says something you care about. If that person has a business, it makes sense not to patronize it, at least emotionally, it makes sense, because giving them your money would be helping to fund an organization that gives money to people who work against what you care about.
I think if you look at it from a logical standpoint, you'll find it makes perfect sense. To simplify, let's say you are a cat lover. If I had a restaurant and I went on TV and said, "I hate cats and kick them in the face every time I see them." Would you still come to my restaurant?Here let me help remove the emotion from your response.
The CEO of Chick Fil A expressed an opinion that is unpopular among some Americans. As Americans they have a right to patronize, or not, any business they want. As Americans they also have the right to hold any opinion they want and not be punished for it by the government. Some people wanted to boycott Chick Fil A - that is their right and it should be supported. Some people wanted to support Chick Fil A - that is their right and it should be supported. I support those who do and do not want to support Chick Fil A - I am not in the least conflicted in that regard.
What is not a right is for government to punish a company for the free expression of the officers' beliefs. If those beliefs are out of step with a substantial portion of a community that business will fail in the market - as it should be - since the market allows for an unrestricted expression of opinion through patronage or boycott.
Much more than that is inserting emotion. The CEO of Chick Fil A was not engage in a political opinion but a moral/religious one. But that is the argument - isn't it. One group sees religion and morality as antithetical to America and the other sees it as essential to America. I wonder what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln had to say about such things...? That is a rhetorical question - we already know.Well since Washington only went to church on special occasions Jefferson removed most of the bible with a razor blade and Adams and his son went on to form the Unitarian church... I think the answer might not be what you think.
That's the second time you've gone with that line. It's funny you imbue my posts with emotion in the way you do. It's probably sadder that you think it would change anything, given that pathos is as much a part of debate as are ethos and logos. I'm not exactly sure what it says about you, but it is interesting.
I sort of get you are trying to play the dispassionate intellect thing, like somehow the illusion of separating yourself from humanity will make real logic out of fallacy, but it's not working. You're too mired down in an emotional stance: tradition... it's always been like this... only a mommy and a daddy matter. It's like you're a religious fanatic wearing a robot costume and hoping nobody notices.
"If anyone can give me a GOOD example why it is okay to hate Chick-fil-A for not supporting gays, then please, post away."
Here's a good example: I can hate whomever I want, for whatever reason I want. My reasons don't have to be rational, or well-reasoned, or well-informed.I think several people have given good examples of why they don't want to give their money to chick-fil-a seeing as chick-fil-a donates money to groups that not only do not support gays and lesbians but are actively trying to deny them rights and in some cases spreading misinformation about the entire group.
But to put it in the terms you did as far as why it's OK to "hate" chick-fil-a for not supporting gays is that there is no logical reason to not support them much less to actively oppress them. The only reason is based on a religion and a 2000 year old script.
I know you asked for a good example so anyone not agreeing my opinion will not view this as a good example. So be it.Sorry if I'm having trouble sifting through the 25+ page of MellissaBarret and others arguing about the proper way to raise children and what counts as a 'real' family to find such 'good' examples.'
I don't think people should hate Chick-fil-A for being Christian any more than people should hate JC Penny for being pro-gay. Who cares? I'll eat my chicken and buy my bargain brands where I so please, without the political activist's butt-hurted-ness at all ringing in my ears.
Yet, when One Million Moms called for a boycott of JC Penney there was no huge outcry about freedom of speech.
Why should there have been?
There wasn't then, and there shouldn't be now, with Chick-fil-A.I would assume you are referring to my beliefs that Chick-fil-A should not be attacked for supporting their beliefs?
JC Penny was attacked for supporting their beliefs, as is Chick-fil-A. The difference lies in that one belief is more accepted by Liberal America than the other. Liberal America is expert at 'screaming bloody murder' thus we heard much more about Chick-fil-A. Either way, I don't think there should have been a boycott for any of the companies.Not that one is working to deny people human rights while another is being inclusive...
That is your opinion. What gives you the right to define exactly what a person's rights are? Some Christians may argue, for example, that gay people dont have the "right" to intrude on an institution between "man and woman."
Marriage does not just belong to one group. Rights are consenting adults being given the same rights as other consenting adults who pay taxes and vote.
I suppose you advocate lowering the drinking age, then?
18, 19, and 20 year old "adults" who "pay taxes" and "vote" are not given the same "rights" as others when it comes to buying alcohol, are they?
Gay people can have civil unions that grant them the same rights as married straight people. In fact, there are many UNMARRIED straight people that lobby for such unions. I don't think everyone has the right to everything that everybody else has. (What if we all had the same rights as police officers? Or the same lack of rights as felons?) This is a pointless argument.. We both think differently and have different opinions, but please, I would appreciate you stop attacking me for them.I am not attacking you, I am disagreeing with you.
And it is not true that gay people can have civil unions and have exactly the same rights as straight people, there would be no outcry over it if that were the case.
Gay people can get married here...it has absolutely no effect on my life.
Yeah. People who have a problem with Chik-Fil-a getting boycott don't understand how the marketplace works.
Worse, they don't even realize that for every person who isn't going to Chik-Fil-A because of the public declaration of the stance on gay marriage, five Bible-waving Christians who have NEVER been to Chik-fil-a are going there for the first time to show solidarity.
So, the institution serves as the citadel on the hill for the righteous, and they can all pour their money into it, knowing that their chicken bucks will be put to secondary service in the pursuit of discriminatory laws. They should be happy.
Talk about not knowing a good thing when you see it. Sheesh. It does epitomize the collective unwillingness to think things through reasonably, however. lol.
As others have said, you do not have to hate anyone to call for a boycott. Chick-fil-A is not being boycotted for being Christian, you have not been paying attention.
Are you then stating that you are speaking for the entire group of everyone who is boycotting Chick-fil-A? I would argue that yes, there are people boycotting them for being Christian.
Sure, believe what you want to believe if it makes you feel better.
- Norah Caseyposted 12 years ago0
This thread has generated too many valid personal attack flags and is now closed.
Related Discussions
- 28
Chick-fil-a: The "Christian" Company
by PseudoLogic 12 years ago
For some reason I've been seeing quite a bit of controversy surrounding this company and I'm just curious what you all think about this "Christian" corporation.For me, I have extremely high doubts on the true sincerity of Chick-fil-a's "Christian morals and values"....
- 32
Chick-fil-a mmmm mmm for gays
by phion 12 years ago
The mayor of Chicago is weighing in on the statements of a Chick-fil-a big wig. Doesn’t he have more important things to address?Gay people out there, I have no issue what so ever with you, and hope you find the happiness in life you seek..... but do you really care if a CEO says he believes...
- 66
Does 1st Amendment rights allow the Right to discriminate?
by Credence2 22 months ago
I think that this issue coming up before the Supreme Court is very important and critical relative to our Civil and political rights.Background..https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics … index.htmlBefore I go into my tirade as to where I fall on the issue, what are the thoughts of...
- 14
Is Religious Discrimination Wrong?
by marriedwithdebt 12 years ago
So, I generally try to stay away from religious topics, but I just got to thinking after reading an article about people who won't vote for Romney or Huntsman because they are Mormons.Is it really wrong to discriminate based on religion?Let me start out by saying that I'm 110% against...
- 16
Will you eat at Subway if they incorporate Sharia Law on how they prepare their
by Timothy Smith 6 years ago
Will you eat at Subway if they incorporate Sharia Law on how they prepare their food products?Do you feel Subway has the made the right business decision to stop serving ham sandwiches we like to please the Muslims according to Sharia Law like in the UK?
- 12
Can Christians be what other would consider "sensitive" to the spiritual world?
by yankeeintexas 9 years ago
Can Christians be what other would consider "sensitive" to the spiritual world?I have met many Christians that say they can see things that others don't! Many of them don't know what to call but being sensitive. I personally don't believe in physics, and medium, and these Christians have...