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.]

BobbyBiplane
BobbyBiplane's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/21/2007
Chick-fil-A

I hate Chick-fil-A but after this assault on free speech and thought in America I may just become a customer. Bob

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Frankly

I don't care what folks think on this issue.

It won't bother me in my life at all, whatever one cares to think.

Just keep making good chicken and Chic-Fil-A will be fine.

Me, I prefer the original Dwarf House, mainly for the BURGERS. :)

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Chic-Fil-A

I won't be attending but it's got nothing to do with the Cathy ideology--I just don't patronize fast food places at all. I do have an occasional visit to a Waffle House for Country Ham & Waffles,to Thai Spice in PTC, and to some Pizza joint. I did prefer PiesonPizza in F'ville until they decided to stop serving wine & beer---should be illegal to sell pizza without beer!

whatnow2424
whatnow2424's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2012
Chick

Been there for breakfast and lunch. Going there tonight for ice dream!

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
The PTC Chic-fil-A at 74 and Peachtree Parkway . . .

. . . 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

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Exactly right, Terry. This should not be political

Gays holding hands or getting married matters not one bit to me. Right wing moralists simply encourage the politicalization of the gay movement by pushing back. If we ignore them, they will either go away or at least realize their in-your-face behavior is not going to get them on the receiving end of some government sponsored entitlement program, which I believe is their real goal.

Prediction - married gay couples will be entitled disability payments because they can't have children. This can happen during Obama's second term. Can't happen? Check out the new definition of "work" as it pertains to unemployment payments - courtesy of Prezbo's executive order last week. Yes, anything can happen.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
The Dilemma

Well, now I find out that besides a kiss-in some of the LGBT groups want us to donate $6.50 (the average cost of a combo meal) to our favorite LGBT organization rather than eat at Chick-Fil-A. These are the times that try men's souls. Do they have any idea the quandary this puts many of us in? While at the gym this morning this was all I could think about. What to do?

Should I go for the Number 1 Combo? A Southwest Chargrilled Salad? A Spicy Chicken Cool Wrap?

Well, I went for the 8-Count Nuggets and a side salad. Total came to $5.62. I saved 88 cents AND I got a survey receipt good for a free Chick-Fil-A sandwich.

What is that old saying??? Oh yeah. Winner, winner, chicken dinner......

GeorgeDienhart
GeorgeDienhart's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
Glenloch location

I stopped by to pick up dinner and was told by the staff that all daily sales records had already been broken. A great day for Chick fil a, traditional family values and American culture.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Surprised that Haddix or his sultry wife didn't say

"I hope you stay here is short". Surely it won't be, but I would love to hear the Buts from the Butts and so on.

Chick-fil-A is an American institution and the little gaysters and lesbolovers and attention-seekers that are pushing this stuff can show up in 2 days for the Kiss your same sex partner love in day and maybe get on TV so you can annoy your mother or father, get a spot on the Island show - if it is still on, or maybe get lemonade poured on you. See if you can top the number of real Americans that came out (pun intended) today.

Dopes. Get a job.

Don Haddix
Don Haddix's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2007
Haddix: Mudcat

Actually, I say, "I hope your stay is long and prosperous."

With that said, are you working on the Chamber of Commerce sponsoring "Untie Atlanta?"

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
How's the repayment of the 10K coming along?

Are you going to make it in a lump sum or going with the easy pay plan they set up for you?

Seriously, what are your plans? Fight it (which would be kind of fun to watch) or stay the course on the payback?

Oh yeah, did you check out the nice stand of weeds I spoke of a couple of weeks ago? We have a nice stand growing north of Kelly on 74...they are looking better and better everyday. A regular citizen would have been fined more than once by now.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
hutch: Haddix

But what did your wife say Don? you still holding to the lie that she didn't say anything?

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Terry, I disagree a bit

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
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
Government and marriage

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
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Dillik - we agree on something (kinda)
Quote:

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

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.

Dillik
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
Whether I find kiss-ins or

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?

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Dillik, I always find overt public displays of affection suspect

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
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
What is the point of homosexual marriage?

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.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
kcchiefandy, evidently you don't keep up with medical science.

For some time now doctors have been able to use the sperm from a man (homosexual men do produce sperm--you did know that didn't you?) and an egg from a woman and eureka! a test tube baby----I do believe I read recently where Louise the first test tube baby turned 30. There are many women who have agreed to be surrogate mothers for women who could not carry a baby to term and also for homosexual couples who wanted a child. There have also been men who donated their sperm so lesbian women can have a child--one woman becomes the birth mother. And I have never read anything or heard anything about a homosexual father being abusive to his child and I am sure if there had been incidents it would have been in all the news media.

If we are going to hold everyone to what the Bible says is a sin then I guess we will go back to doing nothing on the Sabbath--after all we were instructed to keep it holy. And of course there is that bugaboo I mentioned earlier, adultery. How about honoring thy father and mother? I could go on and on--but I think you get the gist of what I am saying. We either believe what is written completely or we don't get to choose the things we want to change because it suits our lifestyle.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Thank you, mytmite...

...great examples of my point; the exploitation of medical science by homosexuals to create a child 'by them'. Can't/won't ever happen by two of the same sex; biologically impossible. As said before, it takes a 'mommy part' and a 'daddy part' to make a baby; it can be manipulated 'til the cows come home by the medical community, but the base fact is homosexuals (by definition) can't procreate.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Hey, chief we are all grownups here--you can call those parts by

their correct names or in case you don't know them----the 'mommy part' is called a vagina and the 'daddy part' is called a penis. There that didn't hurt, did it?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
To be specific, mytmite...

...I'm referring to ovaries & eggs, and sperm.

Dillik
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
kcchiefandy - Gays can't procreate; so what?

If procreation is the standard for legitimacy, you must frown on infertile couples getting married. Man, no wonder God didn't want priests with crushed testes in his temple (Deut 23:1); fertility is serious business! (I'm just kidding; it's the ancient Hebrews who were obsessed with fertility, and we inherited their manuscripts.)

Anyway, your contempt for reproductive medicine is absurd, insofar as both gay couples and otherwise infertile couples can "exploit medical science" to create a child. They can also adopt. But then there's nothing more sinful than forming a lasting romantic bond with another adult and raising a child who has no parents, right? Because they're GAAAAAAYYYY (scary ghost voice).

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
kcchiefandy, since you

compare homosexuality to pedophilia, then the answer to your question "what major religion or belief system in the world today approves of and sanctions homosexual congress" is simple (and given your ND pic, you should be able to relate to this), the Catholic Church. After all, they are the ones who transferred the "Sandusky Priests" around and paid off their victims.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Nice try, birdman...

...to slam a 2000+ year old religion but no where in their dogma is a sanctioning of such acts; please supply proof if you can. Any corruption of such was/is committed by Man, not the Church and its doctrine (and yes, Man has been complicit in concealing such acts, as have many religions/religious persons in history). Again, please present a current, or any, religion that espouses homosexuality as one of its tenets.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
I'm not sure of your argument..

Why does a religion have to back it?

FWIW, I rarely get involved in these types of discussions, as it is usually fruitless.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
You're right kcchiefandy

it is the abomination by man that has allowed the Catholic religion (and many other religions) to go so astray as to actually support and cover up the horrible abuses by some of it's priests. But I really don't remember near the outcry on this, or any other forum, when the scandal broke. And of course I know of no religion that espouses homosexuality. But the whole point is simple, you and those who think like you, demand that the LAW of the nation be supportive of your RELIGIOUS view. That seems to be contrary to our Constitution. The Supreme Court has already upheld this. The Gay community is not asking for RELIGIOUS rights, only LEGAL rights.
You seem to think that all gays are pedophiles, and all pedophiles are gay. In fact that is simply not true. Jerry Sandusky wasn't gay, he didn't like men, he was a pedophile who was married to a woman. He liked little boys. A gay man would be no more attracted to a 12 year old boy than you are attracted to a 12 year old girl.
But the real question is why do you care? Gay rights have no effect on your rights. I know, they "disgust" you. Well lots of stuff disgusts me and everyone else. But we don't outlaw that. I would suggest you quit stressing so much about others seeking equal rights, and concentrate on living the Christian life you see yourself living.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Well, not really, birdman.

Homosexuality is a sexual deviency, like pedophila or beastiality; no where did I state such a link between them as you accuse me of. It is, IMHO, a legal issue because it relates to the progeneration of our society, and societies as a whole. The religious issue is wholly another matter. Did I say they disgust me? If so, that is a bit harsh; I find that sexual act disgusting, not the person, just as murder is disgusting but it happens within our imperfect being.

Btw, what's wrong with having sex with young girls? Some Arabs do it all the time from what I understand. Maybe they were just born that way...shouldn't that be ok?

Busy Bee
Busy Bee's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/18/2006
What's wrong with it KC?

The issue is consent KC, surely you know that.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Surely I do, Busy...

...but that can change. NAMBLA & such orgs. will build lobbying power and get that silly restraint erased from our laws. Who are you to say when someone's ready for sexual activity? Psychiatrists say? Well, up to 40 yrs. ago or so they said homosexuality wasn't normal, so why shouldn't this change now, too? Children mature at different rates, so why restrict their sexual freedom, right?

Dillik
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
When you define something as

When you define something as a deviance, it's easy to claim it leads to other deviances. Here, let's try: Oral sex is a deviance; if we allow it, next they'll be allowing sex with ostriches! It'd be safest to stick to the things that have never been called deviances. Like... um...

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Maybe for you, Dillik...

...but mine is from the direct definition:
de·vi·ant (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
So, kcfa, if the social standard is to eat chicken with a knife

and fork and I choose to pick my chicken up with my hands and eat in that manner, I am a deviant. At one time, women did not venture out without hats and gloves, so, again, if during that time I decided to go bareheaded and with ungloved hands I would have been a deviant. So, the word really does not have a derogatory meaning--it has only assumed that connotation after people such as yourself have decided to use it in that manner. Words can be twisted by anyone to make their point.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Your conduct, mytmite...

...would deviate from the social norm, yes; you're the one trying to make it a negative statement. Whether in science, society, or your 'chicken-eating', deviation is simply that - deviation from the norm.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
KCCA & Deviation

I'm still curious what caused you to "deviate" from hacking dits to recruiting.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
AHG...

...at first, the US Army, then the stability vs. (formerly) constant Intel community PCS's.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
MYTMITE & Social Standard

Having smoked pork chops tonight and there's a good chance I'll pick one up and eat it while holding it in my fingers---but who will know--except my wife of 43 yrs--who may just be doing the same thing---but probably not--her Brit upbringing wouldn't allow!

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Is there any other way to eat them? Well , yes there is but

they do not taste the same. I used to do the same thing when I was the only one there--never in front of the children--didn't want them to grow up to be a heathen like their mother. Enjoy, and for me too--can't eat them anymore.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Please, please stop, AHG...!

Prepping for my special 'internal man-test' procedure tomorrow and slogging down a rancid liquid this evening, comments about your most delicious dinner are MOST unwelcome at this time!! ;)

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Ah, kcca, have you checked out this doctor thoroughly?--wouldn't

want you to end up with a deviant performing your procedure. Good luck--hope everything comes out okay--your test, that is.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
KCCA & Test

Hey, I'm very familiar with the old DRE (it only hurts for a little while), and thankfully, so far they've all been good. Coupled with a very low PSA gives one a sense of security. But hey, just think of how you can gorge/splurge afterwards! OOpS, maybe it's a colonscopy--yep, know all about that too! Telllya what though, I suffered from Diverticulosis for yrs but when the Doc took out a coupla non-cancerous polyps, it all went away! What a relief.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Looking forward to it, AHG.

It should be quite an experience; one of life's special little moments. Now, gotta go...literally! ;)

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
KCCA & Procedure

You won't feel a thing! Guarantee you'll return home singing the praises of Conscious Sedation!

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Beautifully stated Birdman---

It is amazing how so many who claim to be christians have such animosity against someone or a group they do not believe in---but, even so that is their right. When it bothers me is when they try to impose those beliefs on others. So many forget that there is separation of church and state---and also forget that laws are made for everyone not just them.

There are many religions and just as many beliefs. What makes us think that ours is the only right one? From some of the ideas I see espoused here and elsewhere, it is scary how thin that line is between the way they think and the countries that outlaw other religions.

Our constitution guarantees equal rights to all---our religious beliefs should do the same. Just my opinion.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Well put Birdman....

In my very humble opinion.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
oops, extra keystroke

oops, extra keystroke

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
oops again.

oops again.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
kcchiefandy: Homosexuality is like pedophilia or bestiality?

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
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
NUK...

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

Josh Bloom
Josh Bloom's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/15/2010
My question to you sir, Do

My question to you sir,

Do you choose to be straight? Do you choose everyday to be with the oppisite sex or is it simply in your biological makeup?

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
kcchiefandy, why don't you

explain HOW someone could be gay if it wasn't some sort of genetic make up???? I have always marveled at those who claim it's a choice. I am not gay. I know that no matter what I could never have gay sex. It is not something I could do even if I wanted to. But rational thought (I know, only liberals have rational thought) makes the whole "choice" idea absurd. Gays are hated in the community. Hated in the church. Discriminated against by society in terms of military service, groups such as Boy Scouts, etc. In Nazi Germany they were arrested and executed. In Muslim countries they are arrested and executed even today. And the list goes on. So please, if it isn't some genetic make up, can you please explain why someone would go against their very nature, engage in a lifestyle that is uncomfortable (at best) to heterosexuals, and risk shunning, imprisonment, hatred, discrimination, and death. Why would ANYONE choose this?
As an aside, I had a friend I grew up with who was gay. He tried to hide it his whole life. He was so conflicted he attempted suicide twice. As an adult, he finally "came out of the closet." Please show me where he made a "choice" to be gay.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Some do actually choose to be gay, others are born

This is a whole useless argument that never satisfies either side.

Sure some people choose to be gay. It is a well-known fact that tons of girls in college state that they are gay to avoid the relentlessly horny college boys (no offense, birdman). Some stay gay because they meet someone special while they are running in gay circles, others convert back after they find someone who actually graduates from college and has a chance to get a decent job and support a family. I also know ladies who got sick and tired of men in general and simply switched teams - although I think that is a temporary thing.

Others choose to be straight. All I heard growing up was how sexy Annette Funicello was. Didn't make sense to me, but the first time I saw Tim Considine on the Hardy Boys - Ding, ding, ding! Never thought about it before, but sure did afterwards.

Of course I think most are born gay or straight and influenced greatly by their parents. I guess the jury is still out on how a boy with 2 fathers turns out. That will be interesting - I hope we are using massive amounts of our tax dollars to study that.

The only thing good about all this is that people like your friend can now come out without much to fear - assuming he lives in a tolerant part of the country. The pain and anxiety of living with a secret like that is really unfair and I'm sorry so many who were obviously born gay had to suffer.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mudcat

This is the reality of where this issue stands today.

Quote:

Of course I think most are born gay or straight and influenced greatly by their parents. I guess the jury is still out on how a boy with 2 fathers turns out. That will be interesting - I hope we are using massive amounts of our tax dollars to study that.
The only thing good about all this is that people like your friend can now come out without much to fear - assuming he lives in a tolerant part of the country. The pain and anxiety of living with a secret like that is really unfair and I'm sorry so many who were obviously born gay had to suffer.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Who's hating, birdman?

Not me; I pray for them, and for many others, inc. myself and my family, for many, many concerns. We're really just rehashing the old 'nature vs. nurture' arguement; I imagine the answer is somewhere in between. Your friend's affliction is the same as many of us imperfect humans have; we all have crosses to bear and struggles to overcome - some will, and some won't, and we pray for the strength to overcome. All the best to your friend and may God bless his soul.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
When did you decide

that you liked the opposite sex?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
I have a simple way for you to get your proof

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

Dillik
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
kcchiefandy - No proof (that will satisfy you)

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?

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
kcchiefandy, so what about those upright so called Christians

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
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Mytmite, read the Bible...

...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...

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
The Bible has nothing to do with this

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.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
So, kcca, are you saying you abide by all the commandments.

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.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
We're all God's children, mytmite...

...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...

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
kcca, murder is against the law, therefore it is not blown off.

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
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Well, mytmite...

...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...

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Oh, by the way, kcca, the Bible was written by man not God.

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
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
And, by the way, mytmite...

...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!

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
So, kcfa, if you admit that the Bible is still studied and

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
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
The whole Bible isn't the word of God...

...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.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
kcchief

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

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Hutch866...

...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.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
.

.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Thankfully, we are not a "majority rule" type of Country.

That is downright scary.

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

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
kcca, YOUR government? Last time I checked it was OUR

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.

Dillik
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
Spitting on your beliefs?

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
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Civil unions...

...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!

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
So, God can 'make' a person with MS or CP but not homosexuality-

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.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Dillik- Sorry but I don't know
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?

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

Dillik
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
Well, okay, but maybe we can

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
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
I'm netural...Really

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.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
My stone nickel's worth:

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
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
Good solution; let's do that.

Good solution; let's do that.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Chick-fil-A

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

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
and August 2nd

was Chik-fil-A diarrhea day.

Dondol
Dondol's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Lion, Sacrificing Chicken's today?

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

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
ha ha Lion

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.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
2,000 customers per day served

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.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Wedge

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.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
hutch

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

dawgday
dawgday's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2010
Christian Message

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
Dillik's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2012
Completely agreed; the money

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.

Recent Comments