Chick-Fil-A and Homosexuality

[southsideirish71]

My intent was mainly to disassociate Christians with that position on homosexuality. Not all see it the way we assume, just most.

 

I don't mean to make this a religious argument, but only religious topics are offended by fact-based arguments. My assessments of the writers of the bible are very subjective, but I hope the point that (by Earthly perception, which is what every other topic is bound by) humans wrote the Bible. These same humans, whether reading or writing the Bible, would not have understood a discussion of homosexuality since it didn't exist to their knowledge. My opinion is that the Bible makes no statements about homosexuality and thus the practice of marriage is not addressed to that end.

 

My feeling is that too many hide behind their religion to support their fear of alternate sexuality. Greg or other religious folks in this thread may very well not be in this camp, but I cannot help but think that this common reading of religious text is perpetuated by those less noble than our good Soxtalk posters.

 

You don't want to make it a religious argument yet you take the holiest text in Christianity and say it was authored by assholes. The Bible to Christians is a Devine inspired text and not an opinion rag written by some cave dwellers.

 

And you realize that homosexuality did exist back then right. You act like this was some secret.

[Quin]

I'm going to start a day.

 

"I've only had Chick-Fil-A once and it was ok but there aren't many near me and I prefer Subway and Steak & Shake to them so I'll just continue to eat at those locations instead of CFA and In-N-Out, not because of their political and theological values with which I disagree with, but because I don't really care all that much for them" Day.

[Jake]

You don't want to make it a religious argument yet you take the holiest text in Christianity and say it was authored by assholes. The Bible to Christians is a Devine inspired text and not an opinion rag written by some cave dwellers.

 

And you realize that homosexuality did exist back then right. You act like this was some secret.

 

I can say that you're trampling all over my understanding of the world but that's not the point. My point is that we are hearing the word through those that didn't know a thing about being gay or having feelings of marital type and magnitude that go along with that. Sex with something other than the opposite sex was not commonly thought on and was associated in that culture with alternative religious practices and the old practice of men having sex with young boys. My interpretation of religious texts is that God for some reason withheld an opinion on same sex romance. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that homosexuality as a romantic preference isn't received as a real phenomenon until about 1800 years post-Christ.

 

I'm trying hard to distinguish between the man-boy sodomy that was looked down upon by most Western cultures by Biblical times/rape by sodomy/other non romantic same sex acts and homosexuality as we know it now.

 

I do not believe that there is good reason to be a lover of the Bible AND be opposed to homosexuality.

 

[Quin]

I do not believe that there is good reason to be a lover of the Bible AND be opposed to homosexuality.

 

 

[greg775]

At the end of the day, a lot of people, probably millions, think that the CEO of Chick-Fil-A is being discriminatory by sending millions of dollars to organizations that are trying to maintain gays as 2nd class citizens. These millions of people would rather not spend their money at a business where the owner is going out of his way to make sure that a large swath of our population is denied basic rights. Apparently this is hard to understand for some of you in here.

The way "some of us" see it is the CEO of Chick Fil A believes in the Bible's interpretation of marriage. That is it. He donates money to Focus in the Family? How do you know he donates it because of that group's stance on gays? Has he said so? I am appalled that some of you think that the Boson and Chicago mayoral positions on CFA is not an attack on the constitution. Amazing stuff.

 

My intent was mainly to disassociate Christians with that position on homosexuality. Not all see it the way we assume, just most.

 

I don't mean to make this a religious argument, but only religious topics are offended by fact-based arguments. My assessments of the writers of the bible are very subjective, but I hope the point that (by Earthly perception, which is what every other topic is bound by) humans wrote the Bible shines through as a worldly fact. These same humans, whether reading or writing the Bible, would not have understood a discussion of homosexuality since it didn't exist to their knowledge. My opinion is that the Bible makes no statements about homosexuality and thus the practice of marriage is not addressed to that end.

 

So -- nothing else is under attack because there are no faith-based arguments in non-religious topics to muddy the waters when worldly facts are presented (other than politics sometimes )

 

My feeling is that too many hide behind their religion to support their fear of alternate sexuality. Greg or other religious folks in this thread may very well not be in this camp, but I cannot help but think that this common reading of religious text is perpetuated by those less noble than our good Soxtalk posters.

 

Jake, I like you. But your initial post blasted the s*** out of people like me who believe in the Bible. It doesn't anger me, but I feel it proves a point. You blasted away because the liberal media and others mock believers all the time. It's allowed. Christians and Catholics (priest jokes) are the one group that gets leveled and nobody cares that we are offended. This Chic FilA thing has woken up many religious people. They fought back today.

Let me ask you: Do you care that you offended me? Be honest. I don't hold your answer against you. But I assume you don't feel badly at all. All you did was offend a Catholic. Big deal, right?

 

And by the way, despite the fact there are SICKOS everywhere, my religion has been ruined because of the bad priests who abused children. Nobody goes in the seminary any more because no parent can allow their child to consider being a leader in the religion with all the abusers. Fact is there are abusers in any field that includes children. It is a serious serious crime and all should be given the death penalty but it doesn't take away from the fact there are GOOD PRIESTS too.

But everybody can mock away at those who believe because it's allowed. Other groups are protected.

Edited August 2, 2012 by greg775

[Quin]

But everybody can mock away at those who believe because it's allowed. Other groups are protected.

 

I wouldn't say it's so easy to just blast away at Christians. The majority of people in the country are Christian, so there are more people to offend. However, it is due to the relatively vocal nature (greatly aided by the fact that there are more Christians then others) that Christians are generally more susceptible to attack.

 

Not trying to justify it, just think of a reason why.

[greg775]

I wouldn't say it's so easy to just blast away at Christians. The majority of people in the country are Christian, so there are more people to offend. However, it is due to the relatively vocal nature (greatly aided by the fact that there are more Christians then others) that Christians are generally more susceptible to attack.

 

Not trying to justify it, just think of a reason why.

 

God is under siege. It is not PC to mention God, that is why I loved Bush for mentioning God all the fricking time. I like Obama, but he does not mention God much. He did once on TV as I recall, though. I liked it.

[Quin]

God is under siege. It is not PC to mention God, that is why I loved Bush for mentioning God all the fricking time. I like Obama, but he does not mention God much. He did once on TV as I recall, though. I liked it.

 

Yeah, about that.

 

It's not that God is under siege, it's that the country is becoming more diverse. Not everyone believes in the Christian God or a god in general.

 

It's politically correct still, it's just that it doesn't appeal to nearly as many people as before and there is a chance that it can be construed as Christianity trying to reinforce it's place as the dominant religion, which is true in certain capacities. For example, I'd remove "Under God" from the Pledge, because not everyone believes in God and it wasn't there originally.

 

This is the transition from being a very Christian nation to way more diverse.

[CrimsonWeltall]

God is under siege. It is not PC to mention God, that is why I loved Bush for mentioning God all the fricking time. I like Obama, but he does not mention God much. He did once on TV as I recall, though. I liked it.

 

You have it reversed. Obama mentions God all the time. If he didn't, it would be politically incorrect.

[southsider2k5]

But this is the man's OPINION.

Kudos to mayor bloomberg in New York. He GETS IT.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/07/27...-new-york-city/

 

So what if the owner of Chik Fil A thinks the Biblical version of marriage is the right one. He has the right to run a business. Kudos to the NYC Mayor!!! Our mayor should be ashamed of himself. He should be fired actually over this.

 

He has the right to run his own business... Unless he wants to serve supersize cokes. Then f*** him!

[Jake]

I worked for a TV channel for well over a year (we'll say it is on the liberal side of things) and I can tell you, Greg, they are always thinking about Christians. Part of this, of course, is just because TV news viewers tend to be on that side of the spectrum. It may be coincidence (TV news viewers are older, older folks are more often religious) but nonetheless these networks don't really want these groups pissed off. It does happen though...there is typically an effort to have a secular broadcast and at times that rubs people the wrong way. This is a good instance of it because if you are not appealing to a higher authority that says otherwise, there is not a strong argument against gay marriage. So...a secular broadcast almost must be on the favorable side when it comes to the issue, though it is best to be neutral. It is easy to let the opposition of two viewpoints turn into the opposition of two groups (religious vs not) and let's be honest, more people will watch the latter.

 

I learned why sometimes you have to feel like God is under siege. I asked the question...why can't we just report good news? Why can't we avoid controversial topics? People won't watch TV if you do that. It's as if we want what we don't want. It is an interesting balance where you don't want people to be so offended that they quit watching but you may take a position that engages people and it won't always be in a positive way.

 

I also really believe that there is a large, significant group of self-declared Christians that are not opposed to gay marriage. This and just my own study of the bible is why I am pretty adamant that this is not an "atheists vs chick fil a" issue. The angry group are simply those that disagree with the comments, nothing more specific.

 

The angry folks probably have never had the chicken either....

[CrimsonWeltall]

Here's one other thing wrong with society. What Jake wrote about the Bible is offensive to me. And you know what? Nobody cares. Why??? Because it is OK, it is popular to attack believers. It is acceptable to attack those who believe in God and that sucks.

 

He was attacking the Bible. Why should your beliefs be shielded from criticism?

[southsideirish71]

He was attacking the Bible. Why should your beliefs be shielded from criticism?

 

There is a difference between a point of debate and saying the bible is written by a bunch of assholes. People are entitled to opinion and of course different views.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I do not believe that there is good reason to be a lover of the Bible AND be opposed to homosexuality.

 

Other than the fact that it specifically condemns homosexual acts and the god of the Israelites demands that gays be executed?

[StrangeSox]

He has the right to run his own business... Unless he wants to serve supersize cokes. Then f*** him!

[StrangeSox]

There is a difference between a point of debate and saying the bible is written by a bunch of assholes. People are entitled to opinion and of course different views.

 

People are entitled to say that the Bible is written by a bunch of assholes if they want, too. But, like the CFA owner, they are not entitled to be shielded from criticism for expressing those views.

[StrangeSox]

Other than the fact that it specifically condemns homosexual acts and the god of the Israelites demands that gays be executed?

 

Yeah and I should be killed for my poly-cotton blend, too, but you don't see anyone bothering to follow that rule.

[Balta1701]

God is under siege. It is not PC to mention God, that is why I loved Bush for mentioning God all the fricking time. I like Obama, but he does not mention God much. He did once on TV as I recall, though. I liked it.

Greg, your god is not under siege. No one is forcing you to do anything. No one is trying to turn you gay. No one is trying to force you to get gay married. No one is saying you cannot go to church. No one is saying you cannot worship in any way you choose.

 

All we are saying is that you cannot use the U.S. government to enforce your religious beliefs.

[Balta1701]

So here's my message to social conservatives: Just because you were a member of the Boy Scouts, I don't think you are a bigot. Have those waffle fries; I'm not going to glitter-bomb you. But please, hear me out on why these organizations are so troubling to me, personally. Let's get beyond the avatar, so we can understand that this is more about people than about anonymous wall posts.

 

Hi. My name is Conor Gaughan. I am 32 years old. I was born an Air Force child. Most of my formative years were spent in the suburbs of Denver. Mike and MaryAnn were incredible parents, instilling in me a strong moral compass. I have an older brother -- Ghirmay. He joined our family after emigrating from Eritrea. He's now married with three adorable girls. I have a younger sister -- Michaela. She is a senior in high school. As a family, we grew up going to church every Sunday. I attended a Christian Brothers high school. In 2002, I graduated from Harvard, with a degree in economics. While in school, I was a varsity letterman, and I started a non-profit to help at-risk youth. In the ten years since completing my degree, I've largely worked in finance. And, I now work in the media business helping nonprofits to speak the language of American Pop Culture. Oh, and somewhere in there, I came out of the closet. It's nice to meet you.

 

Growing up is never easy. But, teenagers who grow up gay are four times more likely to take their own lives. No, that has nothing to do with our sexuality on its own -- suicide rates are lower where gay kids are accepted. It's because our institutions, and all too often the adults in our lives, tell us we're not as good as our straight peers. In 29 states, it is legal for an employer to fire me for who I am. In 31 states, leaders and voters have told me that I am not worthy of the fundamental human right to marry. You want to marry because you love your Mr. Right; I have no rights to do the same. And, the consequences of this inequality are terrifying and real. For example, I can be denied access to my loved one on his deathbed. There are over 1,100 other rights that I am denied.

 

When gays get so angry about a chicken sandwich, it is because Chick-fil-A has given around $5 million to fight to discriminate against us. When we praise brave Eagle Scouts who give up their badges in protest of the Boy Scouts of America's prejudice, it's not about scoring political points; it's because there are kids in dens who are being taught to believe that they are less than equal. When we rant about the pastor who preaches that gays should be thrown into a concentration camp, we scream out of fear. And our fears are justified -- in the last seven days, a lesbian in Nebraska was carved with a knife, a gay man in Oklahoma was firebombed, and a girl in Kentucky was kicked and beaten -- her jaw broken and her teeth knocked out -- while her assailants allegedly hurled anti-gay slurs at her.

 

I am your coworker, your frat brother, your cousin, your neighbor. And I am watching as you defend institutionalized discrimination.

 

Eat all the chicken sandwiches you want. But, realize that behind this debate are real people -- kids like the girl in Kentucky who fear for their safety, women like Sally Ride's widow who are denied their spouse's Social Security benefits. Even if it doesn't seem like it, we want nothing more than to leave behind the angry debates on Facebook and on Capitol Hill. There are, after all, a lot of pictures of One Direction and grandkids we would rather be posting, sharing and 'liking.'

Link

[Jenksismyhero]

Greg, your god is not under siege. No one is forcing you to do anything. No one is trying to turn you gay. No one is trying to force you to get gay married. No one is saying you cannot go to church. No one is saying you cannot worship in any way you choose.

 

All we are saying is that you cannot use the U.S. government to enforce your religious beliefs.

 

From a believer but not necessarily a practicing Christian, being Christian in today's society, especially in the sub-35 year old age group, is equated to being a gay-hating, science-denying redneck. The liberals have absolutely won that fight, and there's really no debate about it. I think that was Greg's point.

 

And no, you're saying more than "you cannot use the U.S. government to enforce your religious beliefs." The whole point of this thread is an owner of a private company having a religious belief that you don't agree with. And he's been raked over the coals for that belief. So don't give me this crap about it just being about people who believe AND use the government to enforce those beliefs. You obviously have a right do disagree with him and criticize him, but his Christian beliefs are absolutely under attack here.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

From a believer but not necessarily a practicing Christian, being Christian in today's society, especially in the sub-35 year old age group, is equated to being a gay-hating, science-denying redneck. The liberals have absolutely won that fight, and there's really no debate about it. I think that was Greg's point.

 

And no, you're saying more than "you cannot use the U.S. government to enforce your religious beliefs." The whole point of this thread is an owner of a private company having a religious belief that you don't agree with. And he's been raked over the coals for that belief. So don't give me this crap about it just being about people who believe AND use the government to enforce those beliefs. You obviously have a right do disagree with him and criticize him, but his Christian beliefs are absolutely under attack here.

No it is not. This is fundamentally false. And you know that.

 

This is about a private company using its money and influence to make sure the government continues enforcing their owners religious beliefs and whether or not to support that company while doing so.

 

And to a lesser extent, it's also about a pretty poor sounding government response in a number of cities.

[Y2HH]

From a believer but not necessarily a practicing Christian, being Christian in today's society, especially in the sub-35 year old age group, is equated to being a gay-hating, science-denying redneck. The liberals have absolutely won that fight, and there's really no debate about it. I think that was Greg's point.

 

And no, you're saying more than "you cannot use the U.S. government to enforce your religious beliefs." The whole point of this thread is an owner of a private company having a religious belief that you don't agree with. And he's been raked over the coals for that belief. So don't give me this crap about it just being about people who believe AND use the government to enforce those beliefs. You obviously have a right do disagree with him and criticize him, but his Christian beliefs are absolutely under attack here.

 

As is his business, and in some cases, organized by those in political positions.

[Jenksismyhero]

No it is not. This is fundamentally false. And you know that.

 

This is about a private company using its money and influence to make sure the government continues enforcing their owners religious beliefs and whether or not to support that company while doing so.

 

And to a lesser extent, it's also about a pretty poor sounding government response in a number of cities.

 

Explain to me how his donation to a group like Focus on the Family is the government enforcing those same religious beliefs. Lobbying = enforcing government policy? Really?

 

 

[bmags]

No it is not. This is fundamentally false. And you know that.

 

This is about a private company using its money and influence to make sure the government continues enforcing their owners religious beliefs and whether or not to support that company while doing so.

 

And to a lesser extent, it's also about a pretty poor sounding government response in a number of cities.

 

in a nutshell.

 

It's also a perfect encapsulation of the phenomenon of those who are helping deny rights to others acting as victims when others try and gain those same rights. Note, not take away their rights, they can still marry their loves, have wonderful families, live their lives. They just won't be able to force a population into a sub-class.

 

Yeah, it might just be your opinion, but that opinion has real consequences for my friends and neighbors. If it's your opinion that Chick-Fil-A is overrated, that's fine, that's not taking any rights from chick-fil-a. But an opinion on the rights of a minority? Sorry, it holds a bit more weight. And you will be challenged on it. And, in the end, those against gay marriage will lose. And maybe this isn't the fight i'd choose, but to me it's a real sign of just how close we are.

[Balta1701]

Explain to me how his donation to a group like Focus on the Family is the government enforcing those same religious beliefs. Lobbying = enforcing government policy? Really?

Really, you want to tell me that running millions of dollars worth of ads trying to convince people to ban gay marriage has nothing to do with supporting government policy? (I don't have their spending on every issue, but they spent so much supporting Prop 8 in California they had to lay off 20% of their staff).