Tuesday, Jul. 28, 2015    Login | Register           

I love Chick-fil-A . . . now more than ever

Bonnie Willis's picture

While I knew there was a contingent in our society that have contempt for traditional values, I did not think we were at that day when simply expressing those values would be vilified and construed as undermining our country, but that is exactly what is happening to a brand that I love — Chick-fil-A.

It started with Dan Cathy, current company president and son of the founder of Chick-fil-A, doing an innocuous interview with The Baptist Press in mid-July, after which opponents have accused the food chain of being discriminatory, bigoted and unconstitutional.

As a result, a cyber firestorm with socio-political groups came out against the chain and Boston and Chicago mayors declared that Chick-fil-A would not be welcome to open a new store in their cities.

So, what exactly did Cathy say that would cause such ire? It did not take me long to find the “offensive quote” in context:

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. ”We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

“We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.” (K. Allan Blume/Biblical Recorder, Baptist Press, July 16, 2012)

Wow, that’s it?! That’s the quote that has people in such an uproar?

Notice that Cathy does not speak critically, or even mention other forms of relationships. He merely expresses support of traditional marriage and biblical values which are consistent with the founding of our country, and are held today by an overwhelming majority of our citizens, and politicians — at least during an election year.

But I think that it is not so much the quote that socio-political groups are finding offensive. I think it is the fact that Chick-fil-A chooses to operate according to biblical values and demonstrates that a company can be wildly successful living up to its corporate purpose which is, “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

Rather than lashing out at these groups, Chick-fil-A has stated that they will simply continue to focus on delivering great food and service to their customers.

But for those of us who love Chick-fil-A, we know they do so much more. I love Chick-fil-A because of the heart they have for their employees and customers.

I saw how special they made my son feel on his sixth birthday at Chick-fil-A where he received a surprise visit from “Mr. Moo-Cow,” and a mini-cow gift. My son was so happy and slept with that cow for months.

In a day and age when food chains seem to focus on keeping labor and food costs low, what company brings in more labor just to make a little boy feel special? Chick-fil-A, that’s who!

I am hoping that fans (and fanatics) will visit Chick-fil-A today, August 1st, Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and let them know how much we love Chick-fil-A.

Hopefully, this will communicate to the world that we are a nation that appreciates when companies — and individuals — uphold biblical values.

[Bonnie B. Willis is co-founder of The Willis Group, LLC, a Learning, Development, and Life Coaching company here in Fayette County and lives in Fayetteville along with her husband and their five children.]

Comments

Robert W. Morgan's picture

and many, many more times in the future.
The Gayists bashing a Christian does not work for me. Sure, the Mayors of Boston and Chicago can get their panties in a wad about Dan Cathy saying he likes traditional marriage - like God and Jesus, but how does anyone come down on the other side? A Mayor (meaning a real mayor with actual power) says this? How silly. He diminishes himself.

I have always been a Chick-fil A fan, now I am a super fan. Buzz off you little Gayists. Don't need to see you and don't care about your little agenda. If you had just kept quiet, you would have gotten quiet acceptance, but instead you tried the "in your face" approach. Didn't work. Buzz off. Go home. Mommy would be proud.

Live free or die!

G35 Dude's picture

I think gay groups may wind up regretting starting this battle. As pointed out in this article this is more about freedom of speech than gay rights. Before this most people, like me, haven't paid much attention to the political leanings of a given company. After all I thought we all had a right to our opinion. But I'm starting to now. Chick Fil A was already a restaurant that I visited on occasion. I have my calendar marked to be there tomorrow and Friday. And while I won't actually boycott Starbucks, Amazon, etc I'll probably shift a few visits from away from those businesses in favor of businesses that lean more toward my way of thinking. Everyone has a right to their opinion even if some disagree with it.

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

frotzed's picture

Cathy's statement was a calculated business decision, just like everything else he's done. He knows his customer base and caters to them accordingly. The man's too smart a businessman to do otherwise. Most people I know say the same as you, that they're going to eat at Chick-fil-a even more now. Furthermore, it's his right as a private business owner to take any stand he chooses.

When you say, "I did not think we were at that day when simply expressing those values would be vilified and construed as undermining our country, but that is exactly what is happening..." I call foul. Private business owners have the right to express any values they desire, be that Unilever, Oreo or anyone else regardless of what those values are and regardless of whether or not we may agree with them. The conservative right gets into trouble when it vilifies (indeed, even boycotts) a company for taking a liberal stance, yet you're complaining that the liberal left is vilifying Chick-fil-a? In our current two party system that's all either side does. They vilify their opponent and deify their constituency; I think that's unfortunate.

Furthermore, for Unilever and Oreo, even their statements in support of LGBT politics were calculated business decisions. They know their market and their profits reflect accordingly.

** edited for clarity

Robert W. Morgan's picture

I think so as well. The number of heterosexuals that eat at Chick-fil-A outnumber the others 50 to 1 - maybe more.

And of course heterosexual couples marry, go to church on Sunday and have children who they raise to be church-going, heterosexual Chick-fil-A customers who go on to have kids of their own and so on.

Gay married couple may or may not go to Chick-fil-A once in a while, but their kids sure don't.

Live free or die!

G35 Dude's picture

If this is a calculated business decision on the part of Dan Cathy I think he should win the CEO of the award!!!!!

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

He didn't calculate or create this firestorm. Others did. Dan just spoke from his heart and the gaysters decided to take it to another level. Normally I don't care what the little deviants do, but dissing Dan Cathy goes too far. He said what his personal beliefs were and that is fine. The gaysters disagree. So who cares? If Dan calculated or planned this he would come out (pun intended) tomorrow and say "At least we got the national media to present the Chick-fil-A brand properly - with two hyphens and an upper case A". Dan won't do that because he has too much class, but this whole thing has made Christian Chicken a powerhouse.

Live free or die!

I too believe in marriage, having done that twice and the second time for 20+ years. I also believe that as a private citizen, Dan Cathy is entitled to his opinion on, well, anything. It is after all our American ideal to express that. As a private corporation, Chick- fil -a can take any stand that is acceptable to it’s limited stock holders. It would be different as a public corporation. However to me, the real issue here is not what Dan Cathy believes or does not believe, but rather the fact that his company has provided million of dollars over a 10 year period to a host of anti gay and lesbian groups, at least some of which could be and are considered hate groups.
One would expect that the Christian groups that are the typical receiver of the donations would be promoting the love and word of God. Let’s take for example the American Family Association (not sure if they are a recipient, however they are supporting Chick-fil-a). Their web site describes the mission of the American Family Association “is to inform, equip, and activate individuals to strengthen the moral foundations of American culture, and give aid to the church here and abroad in its task of fulfilling the Great Commission. “ Published information would suggest that in recent years it has seemed to specialize in “combating the homosexual agenda.” In 2009, it hired Bryan Fischer as its director of analysis for government and policy, who claimed in a blog post last May 27 that “homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews. OK! Lets changes the target group up a bit. Let’s take another Christian organization as defined by their mission statement: “that way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. " Christian enough since their national director is Pastor Thomas Robb. Problem is that he is the director of the KKK. Imagine how incensed the black community would be if a corporation gave nearly 2 million dollars to them in 2010. How about the mission statement of this group : “we believe that the material life of a healthy, organic society is inseparable from its spiritual life. Therefore, we believe that the state bears an obligation to minister to the spiritual…… We also believe that the unity and cohesion of a people rests on its having a common set of values and ideals which can shape its moral outlook and provide the basis for its lifestyle and culture.” Where can I join? Just look up the American Nazi Party. Imagine if Chick-fil-a gave 2 million dollars to ANP - I think those of the Jewish faith may be a bit troubled.
The comments observed on this blog as well as others almost seems to support discrimination of the LGBT community, or at least to find the fact that they are incensed to be offensive. Discrimination is discrimination. As they say, actions speak louder than words and thus Dan Cathy’s statements are less troubling than their Christian donations.

Dillik's picture

Completely agreed; the money is the real reason to boycott, not Dan Cathy's personal remarks.

On another note, to those who endorse "Biblical marriage" (supposing we're just talking about a man and woman rather than a man, woman, and concubines, or a man and his rape victim, etc.)... Why do you figure it's the role of any level of government to nullify or prohibit non-Biblical marriages? Suppose a woman doesn't agree to properly submit to her husband. Government's role to have a say in that too? What about divorce? Are we limiting this to marriage-related sins, or are we going all-out theocracy here?

Why is it such a scary idea to imagine stepping back and letting a loving couple have a happy life of "sin" as a married couple? Are you afraid God will condemn the United States to destruction because we let some gay people marry the people they love? Wow, awesome God, eh?

Another question: Is it possible to follow Biblical laws in such a way that you're actually being an ass to your fellow human beings? I'd argue gay marriage opponents are doing so currently.

August 1: Sacrifice a Million Chickens for Biblical Marriage Day.

lion

The Wedge's picture

Does anyone know what the daily consumption for chicken is in the US? I have read that 18 billion chickens are consumed annually in the US (USDA 2008). If one calculates it per day, it is 49 milion chickens a day. I think most businesses would be happy to sell 1/49 of the national market at that scale, but I dont think Chick Fil A has that many restaurants.

hutch866's picture

Just rode by the Chic-Fil-A at 85 and Ramah rd and the traffic was backed up out of the parking lot and down Ramah almost to 85. Doubt a boycott is going to hurt them any.

I yam what I yam

G35 Dude's picture

I ate at this Chick Fil A at lunch. One gentleman joked that he was glad that there was a boycott today because where would we put any more people? LOL

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

mudcat's picture

That's the national average for each restaurant. Some buy the equivalent of one or two chickens (large family) some only eat a very small part of a chicken - like a biscuit or chicken salad - so say each restaurant needs 1,000 chickens and there are 1600 restaurants. That's 1.6 million chickens. Each day! Where do they all come from? Who cuts them up and distributes them?

They are creating a lot more jobs than the mayor of Boston.

Dondol's picture

Well we could be Sacrificing Lion's but I hear there stringy and sour, so I'll stick with Chicken.

albion's picture

was Chik-fil-A diarrhea day.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

tgarlock's picture

. . . at noon had a full parking lot and traffic backed up out the access road and around to 74. Some parked at Wendy's or Outback and walked over.

Personally - careful of whiplash now - as a conservative Republican I have always thought my party is wrong on gay marriage, that we should support their right to freedom of choice in a marriage partner whether we personally agree or not.

But even though that is opposite to what Dan Cathy said, I support him completely in saying what is on his mind, and making corporate donations to the service org of his choice. Mayors of Boston and Chicago et al are idiots for declaring they would block Chick-fil-A in their city because of Cathy's ideology. At least the Boston mayor came to his senses, I hope it was because he realized he was wrong, not just practical politics.

The reason to celebrate Chick-fil-A today is to rally against political intimidation of those who swim upstream against what is politically correct at the moment.

I would have waited in line at Chick-fil-A to show my support but was trumped by an 11 year old daughter who chose Wendy's.

Terry Garlock

Terry Garlock

The Wedge's picture

I think that the government should get out of the business of regulating it entirely. We are rapidly approaching a time where a governmentally mandated "right" will infringe upon religious freedom. I dont want a church to be forced to perform a service anathema to them; nor do I think that government should craft tax strategy for social engineering, including marriage bonuses and penalties. I think heterosexuals, selfishness and no fault divorce have screwed up marriage way before gay marriage took the forefront.

Dillik's picture

Agreed here; I find the idea of any level of government sanctioning a union between consenting adults to be pretty strange, precedent aside. I'd like to see marriage be an institution recognized by individual churches or communities as they see fit, and either end or make universal the various perks offered to state-recognized married couples.

Until we get to that point, though, we should at least keep the government from using selective criteria (Biblical or otherwise) to steer marriages in one particular direction. Can you two (or five) legally consent to a contract? Great, you're married.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]Agreed here; I find the idea of any level of government sanctioning a union between consenting adults to be pretty strange, precedent aside.[/quote]

The Government's only role in sanctioning marriage is to prevent bigotry and have a legal record of who is to get your benefits. I too would like to see government involvement in marriage end.

Be it polygamy or gay marriage I really don't care what others do in the privacy of their own home. As long as I don't have to pay for it or have it shoved in my face. When gays want to stage boycotts, parades, kiss ins, that is when I begin to take an active part to stand up to them. My opposition to gay marriage/bigotry comes from a financial perspective. Can you image the cost of adding all of these people to the system as a legal spouse/spouses to receive benefits such as death benefits, retirement, hospitalization, social security, etc? I just don't think we can afford that. Show me a way to fund the rights that these people want and maybe I'll see things differently.

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

Dillik's picture

Whether I find kiss-ins or sexualized parades (which is my unfortunate impression of gay pride parades) especially classy, I'm concerned that when people say they don't want homosexuality "shoved in [their] face," they're also suggesting gay couples should have less freedom to hold hands or kiss in public than straight couples should. That disparity isn't cool, even if the sight of same-sex affection makes you (nonspecific "you") squeamish. Maybe if your kids see it more, they won't grow up so squeamish (and there's a chance it won't actually turn them gay!).

But more to the point, I have to admit you've hit me with a new argument I haven't seen before: we can't afford all the extra marriages if gays get married. I actually don't know how to process that one, insofar as I'm unfamiliar with the notion of the government ever wanting to discourage marriage in general. Doesn't it provide increased family stability? If gays can adopt (and there's no scientifically defensible reason they shouldn't be allowed to), wouldn't you want to give their parents incentive to stay together?

But okay, if you really do want to cut down on marriages to save money, maybe you could outline some means of pickiness that wouldn't discriminate against one particular type of people. Maybe discriminate against lightning-fast and serial marriages first?

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]But okay, if you really do want to cut down on marriages to save money, maybe you could outline some means of pickiness that wouldn't discriminate against one particular type of people. Maybe discriminate against lightning-fast and serial marriages first?[/quote]

I don't have those answers. We don't live in a perfect world.

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

Dillik's picture

Well, okay, but maybe we can agree that prohibiting gay marriage isn't necessarily the best or fairest way to save money. Besides, just think how much all those gay weddings would stimulate local economies. :-D

G35 Dude's picture

As stated before if I'm to answer based only on a moral basis: I really don't care. If we were asked to vote and this was the only topic on the ballot I wouldn't bother to go to the polls.

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

rolling stone's picture

The problem as I see it is that the word "marriage" is being applied to two completely separate issues, only to have people try to come to terms with one while using components from the another. Marriage as a spiritual/emotional/social advantage motive, and marriage as a legal contract/source of proprietary benefits. The first one can not be legally regulated, the second one can. The first can be dissolved by something as simple as leaving the cap off of the toothpaste tube, the second requires legalities. At our core we know the difference since we do not go back to the institutions where the marriage took place to satisfy the legalities of divorce, probate, etcetera.
The solution is to issue the equivalent of civil union licenses to everyone and the churches/"Marryin' Sams" can issue the "Marriage" certificates. I look at this issue much as I do the other hot button issues: abortion, gun control...the opposing sides are much more comfortable with the controversy of being at loggerheads than they are interested in a reasonably compromised agreement.

Dillik's picture

Good solution; let's do that.

be they gay or straight couples. I see nothing wrong with a peck on the cheek or such but I always wonder what the couples who go in for heavy 'petting' types of affection are trying to prove. It always seems to me that they are saying "Hey, look at us--aren't we sexy." After all, you have your homes for that, or hotel rooms, etc. I felt this way even when I was young so it can't be chalked up to old age. But then again, that is only my opinion.

kcchiefandy's picture

Other than possible tax advantages, what do homosexuals expect to gain? Their 'unions' don't pro-generate for our society (even if they abuse medical science developed for barren couples to 'produce' a child [btw, it still takes a Mommy part and a Daddy part to make a baby, ergo NO homosexual couple can conceive a child]). Their hope to convince us all that it's 'normal' can take it home and they'll be judged by the Almighty; as for me I'll support our Federal lawmakers in deeming 'marriage' as the Bible defines it, for the good of mankind and society. All the best to 'them' and their 'partners', but you can stop spitting on my beliefs and lifestyle; hopefully our representatives will protect us from such deviant encroachments on the majority.

Beyond the scope of biblical sanctions, it just seems to make biological sense; given that us fallible humans are racked with desires of many kinds derived from our experiences and developments, homosexuality is a deviancy, like pedophilia and bestiality, et al, that needs to be overcome. As a wise man once said, the greatest trick the devil ever played was that he doesn't exist. You can bag on Christianity all you want, but please show me what major religion or belief system in the world today approves of and sanctions homosexual congress; I'd be interested to see/read about it.

Dillik's picture

Marriage offers tax advantages, easier inheritance, visitation rights, and so forth, but also general status; civil unions just sound goofy. And your talk of nonproductive gay couples seems to willfully ignore married couples who choose not to conceive or who are sterile. Procreation isn't the only reason people marry, nor should it be.

Now what I'd like to know is, how is it spitting on your beliefs and lifestyle if you happen to know that a same-sex couple down the street got married? Are you really that sensitive? If the gays suddenly burst into your house and forced you to gay-marry someone, I could understand you'd reasonably be upset about that. But a gay marriage somewhere in your general area no more infringes on your way of being than does someone somewhere praying to the Buddha.

As for biology, you probably don't want to go there, lest you be confronted with the uncomfortable reality of naturally-born gay animals (humans included). Unfortunately, this reality is hidden if you make a point to ignore or dismiss every piece of science that doesn't conform to your dogma. I guess I can sympathize a bit; if the Bible tells you it's wrong, how could God possibly create gays that way?! Insistence that it's a deviance or conscious choice is one way people go about trying to reconcile this issue... The other being that maybe the Bible is too strict about some things, like mixing fabrics or getting tattoos.

I'll leave you with an interesting tidbit: There are actually good Christians who manage not to be jerks to gays (and yes, preventing them from getting married counts as being a jerk). How do those Christians do it?

kcchiefandy's picture

...cover all that; I have no concern with that - God, not I, will judge us all. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man & a woman. All men/women are fallible & not perfect; how could God make one with MS or CP? We are charged to care for all of God's creatures, and some have challenges to overcome and deal with - even me! I'll pray for them, and me, and even you, too!

Hmm, once again it seems like you are choosing what fits what you believe. If we are charged to care for all of God's creatures, some with challenges to overcome and deal with--why do you have the feelings you do toward homosexuals? Aren't they too, in your eyes, God's children--? I am sure they will appreciate your prayers as much as I do.

hutch866's picture

What makes your beliefs more important then anyone else's?

I yam what I yam

kcchiefandy's picture

...where did I say they were? I believe the intolerant homosexual community has demanded theirs are more than Truett Cathy's (they've prematurely judged it's his whole organization apparently, and not just his personal views. Talk about bigots...). God alone will judge those who deviate from His word, not me; I just believe in His definition of what marriage is, and is for. You can go marry your goldfish for all I care; just don't expect me or my government to sanction it. Hopefully the majority will rule in this.

government. And for the sake of argument--there is supposed to be separation of church and state--therefore, legally, what the Bible says should have no bearing on the laws of our land. Again, that is only adhered to when it suits the whim of those in power.

And just to make things perfect clear, I am not now nor have I ever been nor will I probably ever become a homosexual---I simply live in my home as I choose and as long as what someone else does in their own home and for that matter, in their own bedroom is none of my business. And if it turns out you are correct, which I doubt, it will all be sorted out for all of us at that day of reckoning--but then too there are those who think there is nothing else--no day of reckoning. Many people with many different religions and many beliefs. I have heard people laugh at Muslim's for believing they will be given vestal virgins when they go to their maker--but then there are probably those who laugh at us Christians when we talk of the streets of gold in heaven.

That is downright scary.

Read and learn what a Constitutional Republic is all about. After all, you live in one.

hutch866's picture

.

I yam what I yam

who marry and then desecrate their wedding vows by sneaking around and having out of wedlock sex---like so many of our elected officials do? I seem to remember that Adultery is a sin according to the Bible. Are they deviants? To my way of thinking these are the people who do more harm to the state of marriage than two homosexuals who want to get married. But our politicians like our preachers who are caught having illicit affairs cry and state they have reformed and all is forgiven. There are same sex couples who have been together for 20 or more years and are still together. There are instances where a same sex couple had been together for many years, both of them productive, law abiding citizens and pillars of their community, yet when one got ill they did not have the right to be at their bedside as a family member.

If I am not mistaken I believe there are quite a few different churches who welcome gay couples. It was interesting to learn that Sally Ride had a same sex partner for many years that we did not know about. I would imagine it was kept under wraps because she did not want the adverse publicity. Wonder how many people feel differently about her accomplishments after finding out.
I have no interest in the same sex, never have and doubt I ever will but I cannot fault someone else for what they feel. And, contrary to what you say and think I know for a fact that it is not a deviant behavior. As I have said before I saw the signs in my brother when he was very young--way before his teen years and this was many years ago when people did not discuss it so it was not something he saw on TV, read in a book or saw at home.

I do think you are very wrong to compare homosexuality with pedophilia. As much as many people would love to think otherwise, homosexuals are not interested in harming children.

kcchiefandy's picture

...no where is there an acceptance of homosexuality. It is a sin, denoted in several locations in the Bible, and any alteration of such is simply a creative rationalization by Man; it's an incongruity to label yourself Christian and only pick out what you like to believe (for Catholics who don't follow 100% of the Church, they're known as 'Buffet Catholics'!) Btw, never said 'homosexuals are interested in harming children' - YOUR words; I say there are many sexual deviancy that can be justified by saying 'that's just the way they were born'. Either you walk the line or you slip down the slope...

My words exactly to you--you can't choose what you want to believe in and follow if you are going to hold others to strict adherence. Do you do any type of work or pleasure on Sunday or do you abide by the commandments and keep it holy? Have you always honored your parents? Do you only use sex for procreation? If you and/or your spouse are too old to procreate have you given up sex? Do you or did you use birth control? After all birth control would be contrary to procreation. Many sexual practices between straight men and women would be considered deviant by many--have you ever practiced any type of sex other than that which would lead to procreation? Is your wife subservient to you? I could go on and on but you would probably ignore it as you did the questions I posed in my previous post. As for my remark about homosexuals and children you are the one who lumped homosexuals with pedophiles and those who have sex with animals.

Man wrote the Bible. Much of it is man's interpretation and even that was written in a language that had to be translated and in many instances was further translated from the original using man's interpretation.

kcchiefandy's picture

...much was inspired by the word of God, and by the way, that's why it's still studied and interpreted today. There's much yet to discover, esp. in the unread Dead Sea scrolls - it's quite the ongoing adventure!

interpreted today, you must admit then that it is subject to man's interpretation not God's. So, according to that if a learned scholar was to determine that God had not said that homosexuality was a sin but that Paul, or Peter or another of the apostles had made that interpretation would you be changing your mind? It is fine to say much was inspired by the word of God--but in reality isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God? If so, how could the Bible be inspired by the Bible? Little confusing, don't you think? The Bible was written by man--maybe God came to some of the apostles and told them what He wanted but supposed those apostles put their own interpretation on what was told to them--not the word of God but someone else's interpretation of his word. We have people doing all kinds of crazy things today with many of them saying God came to them and told them to do it or to spread the word they were given. Do we believe God came to them and gave them this message? If not, why not? Or are we only supposed to believe the ministers, priests, nuns, etc. who say God came to them? Kind of makes you wonder--or it should.

kcchiefandy's picture

...much is the writings of his apostles & believers. When, in the future, we discover texts that support the practice of homosexuality, rather than the numerous current references it holds damning the practice, then we'll have a whole new topic to discuss.

kcchiefandy's picture

...and all sinners; we must do our best to abide by His guidance. There are some out there who do follow His word in very strict adherence. Did you know some people kill other people - that's even against the 10 Commandments, but we can just blow that one off whenever we feel like it, too...

Yes it is a commandment, but, unlike some of the other commandments it is also the law of the land. You don't get sentenced to prison for not honoring your mother and father, but if justice prevails you do get sentenced for killing them or anyone else. This is one instance where church and state agree. You seem to want to have it both ways---anyone can interpret anything and many things may go into their interpretation, but the word of God is supposed to be the word of God not someone's interpretation.

kcchiefandy's picture

...homosexual acts were once against the law, so maybe murder will be legal eventually; we can only hope, right? Maybe age of consent, too, just as soon as NAMBLA & such build lobbying power like the homosexuals have. If we're lucky, maybe every constraint of society will have the shackles thrown off...

mudcat's picture

This is not a morality or religious issue - it is political. The Democrats want to create groups and be sure almost everyone is included in some group so they can provide a one size fits all solution to whatever problem that group has. Gay marriage is just such an issue. Nothing has changed for 2,000 years except society finally got degraded to the point that almost anything goes - again thanks to the Democrats, ACLU, affirmative action, abortion on demand, political correctness, pandering to the Muslims, the hispanics and blacks, extreme environmentalism, universal health care, social security, welfare, food stamps, Section 8 housing,etc. This gay marriage thing is just the latest on that list.

The best solution is to ignore this stuff - simply don't respond with any opinion at all and the Democrats won't be able to assign victim status to this or any other group. Once it is believed that gays are being persecuted because they are not allowed to marry, big government steps in to solve the problem. Then when someone balks at throwing money at a special interest group to buy Democrat votes, they can be labeled a hater. This is all stuff that should never become part of politics.

So, don't expect any liberal thinker to be respectful of the Bible or even the Constitution. Nothing is more important than the political points that can be scored. Just ask Nancy Pelosi.

NUK_1's picture

I think you've stepped into the fundie-zone of irrational thought and a total lack of anything resembling logic or intelligence. A "deviancy to be overcome?" Really, this is some kind of scary thinking. Sounds like the FC Taliban just added another member.

There are plenty of people against gay marriage for whatever reasons or principles,religious or non-religious, but equating homo's with pedophiles and human-animal sex seems to be straight out of the insanity that history has shown has lead to mass murder and terrorism, two concepts that don't resemble Jesus Christ or his teachings in any way.

You talk about "biological" reasons against gays, yet absolutely cannot fathom that maybe gay people are BORN THAT WAY. So, some biology is OK and totally legit....other biology or science....NOT OK!

Fortunately, you fundies are out-numbered these days and if you think that will ever change back to some kind of fundamental genocide like the good 'ol days of the Crusades or what is practiced abroad these days in fundie countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia,Pakistan, Iraq, etc, think again. Congress and our political leaders aren't going to "protect" us against something that is no threat whatsoever to anyone except the most narrow-minded and hysterical, nor are they going to model American society based on what the absolute worst amongst other countries do. Yeah, our govt can be bad, but it won't ever be THAT bad to where Pakistan is our role model because they kill gays.

kcchiefandy's picture

...provide proof that they are 'born that way'. Makes for nice lyrics for Lady Gag-gag, but not proof; no genetic link to date...

Dillik's picture

For a start, there are plenty of interesting sources linked in Wikipedia's article on homosexuality, but you may not find that page interesting, insofar as it lacks a Jesus fish in the corner. But alas, if you were actually interested in real research, I doubt you'd continue embarrassing yourself here. The Bible is all the research you need, am I right?

rolling stone's picture

Go and ask a gay person about it. They know the timeline better than anyone.

Pages

Ad space area 4 internal

Government

The Peachtree City Police Department has been selected by the International Association of Chiefs of Police as the recipient of first-place honors in the National Law Enforcement Challenge for effo

Sponsored Content

Lifestyle

More than 25 people took to the path at Newnan Utilities Carl Miller Park July 25 for Piedmont Newnan Hospital’s Walk with a Doc, led by Ashish Dhungel, M.D., nephrologist at The Kidney Clinic.