Chick-Fil-A and Homosexuality

[cabiness42]

I understand why people believe in God, but what I don't understand is how so many people think they know everything about God. They have God completely figured out. They know exactly what God thinks about this and that and every political issue under the sun. Interestingly, their image of God usually reflects their own agenda. So many people in all types of religious sects think God has spoken directly to them or they think that their interpretation of Scripture is the only true interpretation that they close off their mind to any other worldview that differs from theirs.

 

Some in my own family are perfect examples of this. They refuse to watch anything but Fox News. They not only oppose gay marriage but hate anything associated with homosexuality and constantly mock gay people. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they waited in line this morning to get a chicken sandwich on Appreciation Day. I just wish people like this would take the time to sit down with a gay couple for a few hours and actually get to know what it was like growing up in a world of discrimination. They never asked to be gay, they were simply born that way, never attracted to the opposite sex, it wasn't a choice... and as they grew older they just wanted to live a fulfilling life with someone else rather than living a solitary life. With so many suicides committed among the gay population over the years, I would think more people would be in favor of gay marriage. But no, their minds are closed and beliefs are unwavering.

 

Here's the biggest problem with the anti-gay marriage position:

 

Even if you accept that the bible's teachings on homosexuality are true (which I do), there still isn't a rationale for banning gay marriage. First of all, the sin is having sex, not getting married, and banning gay marriage is not going to eliminate or even reduce the amount of sin. Secondly, our constitution doesn't allow for laws that are based purely in religion if they don't also meet the standard of having a positive societal impact. Murder and theft are sins that are also illegal because there is clear harm to one or more victims. Adultery, lust, greed (to the extent that it doesn't cross the line into theft), and failing to keep the sabbath are all sins (that many anti-gay activists are guilty of, by the way) that are not regulated by law because they don't have clear victims. It's inconsistent to have legal restrictions on homosexuality but not on these other sins.

 

I will say that when (not if) we do reach the point of federally-recognized same-sex marriage, that I am in strong favor of allowing private employers the right to have a religious objection to extending benefits to same-sex partners. I also think the tax code will need a major overhaul in order to survive the massive influx of childless married couples, but that's a whole other subject.

[Balta1701]

I will say that when (not if) we do reach the point of federally-recognized same-sex marriage, that I am in strong favor of allowing private employers the right to have a religious objection to extending benefits to same-sex partners. I also think the tax code will need a major overhaul in order to survive the massive influx of childless married couples, but that's a whole other subject.

Would you allow an employer to refuse benefits to an interracial couple if they objected to it?

[Jenksismyhero]

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).

 

That's like equating the guy at the Daley Center with a whistle and a sign with government enforcement of policy. So no. They're campaigning privately, which is entirely different from using the government to enforce religious belief.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

That's like equating the guy at the Daley Center with a whistle and a sign with government enforcement of policy. So no. They're campaining privately, which is entirely different from using the government to enforce religious belief.

As soon as the government stops enforcing that religious belief, you might have a point. When prop H8 gets narrowly passed after a gigantic ad bombardment with Focus on the Family as its number 2 funder after the Mormon Church, then saying that isn't taking advantage of the government to enforce religious oppression is just false.

[cabiness42]

Would you allow an employer to refuse benefits to an interracial couple if they objected to it?

 

I suppose that there are enough churches that still believe this that it would have to be allowed as a religious exception.

 

Unlike homosexuality though, I think that belief is held by a small enough percentage of the population that no company outside of some small employers in the South are going to be able to succeed with that belief.

 

[southsider2k5]

That's like equating the guy at the Daley Center with a whistle and a sign with government enforcement of policy. So no. They're campaigning privately, which is entirely different from using the government to enforce religious belief.

 

That guy confuses the s*** out of me.

[Jenksismyhero]

As soon as the government stops enforcing that religious belief, you might have a point. When prop H8 gets narrowly passed after a gigantic ad bombardment with Focus on the Family as its number 2 funder after the Mormon Church, then saying that isn't taking advantage of the government to enforce religious oppression is just false.

 

By this logic any private campaign to lobby the government to do anything even remotely close to enforcing religious belief is unconstitutional. This is just so wrong.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

I suppose that there are enough churches that still believe this that it would have to be allowed as a religious exception.

 

Unlike homosexuality though, I think that belief is held by a small enough percentage of the population that no company outside of some small employers in the South are going to be able to succeed with that belief.

 

If you can get religious exemptions to discriminate against one thing, you can get them for anything.

[Jenksismyhero]

That guy confuses the s*** out of me.

 

My firm sorta laughs at the guy because his "food strike" is never more than a day or two old.

[cabiness42]

If you can get religious exemptions to discriminate against one thing, you can get them for anything.

 

Sad, but true. However, the one check that our system of religious freedom has is that if your view is too extreme, the public will not allow you to succeed even if you legally hide behind religion.

 

40 years from now, even if there are religion-based reasons to legally discriminate against gays, it won't work because it will be such a minority view in society that nobody will patronize your business if you hold those views. CFA is proof that we aren't there right now.

[Soxbadger]

My firm sorta laughs at the guy because his "food strike" is never more than a day or two old.

 

Well the FBI has been raping his wife for the last 7 years.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well the FBI has been raping his wife for the last 7 years.

 

True. And they took his kid(s) away.

[Balta1701]

By this logic any private campaign to lobby the government to do anything even remotely close to enforcing religious belief is unconstitutional. This is just so wrong.

I never argued that it was unconstitutional here for them to do what they did, and I'm not sure I've argued anything about the constitutionality of gay marriage, only the morality of it and total lack of morality on the side of the opposition. But yeah, it'd be damn great if we could stop having private money buy elections.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sorry, I assumed your "we only care when the government enforces religious belief" point was recognizing the constitutional limitation of governmental interaction. Still, you're clearly going beyond that situation since here the CEO of CFA is not using government to enforce anything. Donations to a lobbying group is a stretch.

 

Good response to Emanuel I hadn't seen posted yet:

 

http://www.archchicago.org/blog/

 

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

 

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.” Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus. Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will? What are we re-defining?

 

Yep.

[Balta1701]

Do we really need to go through how incorrect it is to state this current understanding of marriage is the one that has prevailed since homo sapiens first existed...or do you need the other 19 people in your Harem to bring you a dowry of 3 goats each first?

[StrangeSox]

the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history

what a remarkably ignorant statement.

[Jenksismyhero]

Do we really need to go through how incorrect it is to state this current understanding of marriage is the one that has prevailed since homo sapiens first existed...or do you need the other 19 people in your Harem to bring you a dowry of 3 goats each first?

 

Exception to the rule or the norm?

[southsider2k5]

I just read that I am in the same place here as Barney Frank.

[Quin]

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.

 

Um, no. We're just more open minded to being acccepting of other religions, orientations, and creeds in this generation. In my hometown, more people were Christian then not. The difference being they don't shove it on others. Almost all of my best friends are Christian, some very devote. I know they are, they know I'm a former Jewish Atheist. We never talk about it because it's pointless. One did try to convert me, I told her it was pointless and that the beauty of beliefs is that we are all right.

 

The thing is, it's the people who are so vocal about their beliefs and try to make others folloe them that are looked down on. Because there are more Christians and the fact that Christians were allowed to do that for centuries, there are more vocal Christians.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Do we really need to go through how incorrect it is to state this current understanding of marriage is the one that has prevailed since homo sapiens first existed...or do you need the other 19 people in your Harem to bring you a dowry of 3 goats each first?

 

3 goats each? That's way too high a price for me to buy wives with. We all know girls' primary uses are sexin' and babymakin', neither of which are useful to you with your daughters. I'll give you 1.5 goats apiece.

[Balta1701]

Exception to the rule or the norm?

The norm for marriage has changed drastically over time. I mean, 50 years ago, interracial marriage was an abomination in many parts of the country. It's not even the same worldwide. How recent is the "No fault divorce" trend?

[Jenksismyhero]

The norm for marriage has changed drastically over time. I mean, 50 years ago, interracial marriage was an abomination in many parts of the country. It's not even the same worldwide. How recent is the "No fault divorce" trend?

 

Right, and absent some clearly rare examples, same-sex marriages have no history until recently. That's his point. Marriage started because creation of a life depended on it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Um, no. We're just more open minded to being acccepting of other religions, orientations, and creeds in this generation. In my hometown, more people were Christian then not. The difference being they don't shove it on others. Almost all of my best friends are Christian, some very devote. I know they are, they know I'm a former Jewish Atheist. We never talk about it because it's pointless. One did try to convert me, I told her it was pointless and that the beauty of beliefs is that we are all right.

 

The thing is, it's the people who are so vocal about their beliefs and try to make others folloe them that are looked down on. Because there are more Christians and the fact that Christians were allowed to do that for centuries, there are more vocal Christians.

 

I'm not denying that Christians are still the majority, but in pop culture and the news they are not. Generally speaking they are almost always characterized in the negative because of their beliefs.

[Balta1701]

Right, and absent some clearly rare examples, same-sex marriages have no history until recently. That's his point. Marriage started because creation of a life depended on it.

But don't come here and tell me that there is one single understanding of marriage that has prevailed throughout human history, and don't come here and tell me that there weren't plenty of homosexual unions in the time before Western governments put together the current set of marriage laws.

 

absent some clearly rare examples, interracial marriage had virtually no history until recently either.

[Soxbadger]

Marriage started because creation of a life depended on it.

 

No it doesnt.

 

Marriage started as a way for males to own females.

 

Can you name another species that has marriage?

 

Also if we are going by history, doesnt oldest culture win? It was quite accepted for men to have sex with men in Greece, far before the advent of Christianity. And Im pretty sure Alexander the Great had multiple wives, so were cool with polygamy as well?