Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA

reply to post by IronArm


You really can't argue the history, during much of the time the Bible was being written homosexuality was the norm amongst many of the ancient Greeks instead of the exception. Young Spartan warrior males were often involved in homosexual relationships until they were old enough to marry. The Spartan women would have to shave their heads and act like young boys to attract a husband. At the time there really was a concern about confused sexual identity harming society.

These days the homosexuality nature versus nurture issue is no longer relevant. Homosexuals are a minority within society. People are born gay and no amount of behavioral conditioning is going to change them. There is no longer any behavioral choice that can be influenced. These days if a Christian feels they must bully a homosexual, it is an indication of a problem with the bully. Why in these modern times are they still conflicted? Are they having troubles with their own sexual identity? Were they feeling rejected because their own sexual advances disgusted a homosexual? Are the holy scriptures merely an ego device that lends support for bullying to satisfy their own hate and negative emotional state?

reply to post by Annee

I just can't seem to shake this thread....

(Note: I am replying to Annee mainly because her post is being quoted. I direct this post to everyone in this thread.)

Point is anyone can be "married" in name only or by a religious person. "Marriage License" is a government contract. A legal contract to protect rights and property of those joining together as one household.

I'm not sure, but we may be saying the same thing in different words:

Marriage is a religious/cultural ceremony, originally designed to discourage promiscuity and promote paternal responsibility. In earlier civilizations, a marriage was simply a publicly witnessed agreement between two people (typically a man and a woman, but yes, some cultures also accepted two men or two women) to live as one. This was used quite regularly in order to form kinship bonds between powerful families: the common people typically were unable to subscribe to this practice. For them, there was indeed a practical side to marriage, as children were indeed a necessity to a successful farm; yet, it was still considered a social taboo to dismiss a wife over a failure to bear children; women were still to be cherished, at least openly. Quite a few women who found themselves in this situation took in (adopted) the children of concubines as their own as a practical matter.

Polygamy was an extension of this as well. Men could father even more children and in the process, provide for even more women in order to be able to do so.

Yet, even in the middle of all this practicality and social experimentation, love... the deepest of emotions... still played a huge role. Even as far back as Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet told a story of two people in love enough to try to break a family restriction on marriage. This subject would have made no sense to a society which did not already understand that love was such a strong force between two people. The concept of love goes back much farther than it seems to be getting credit for.

Modern Western culture has tried to formalize this ceremony via contract law. The Marriage License was originally proposed as a method to document what once was simply a public display of intent, much as a recorded deed on property documents the transaction of purchasing that property. This has lessened the role of love among powerful families, although not so much among the common people. Some things never change.

The problem of discrimination is not in the marriage itself, but in the fact that government policies have grown to favor marriage as you state. Anyone can be 'married'. If I were gay, there are no laws stating that I cannot set up household and cohabitate with another man. There are no laws to say I cannot announce my partner as my 'wife' or 'husband'. None. The only thing that would be missing would be the tax advantages (cannot file as married) and certain insurance/medical care/inheritance advantages.

I wholly support allowing same-sex couples these advantages.

But the tired cliche' of "How does same-sex marriage affect me?" is blown apart in thread. It does now affect Chik-Fil-A, for they are being demonized for the appearance of being "anti-gay". Because some people wish to use the term marriage outside the cultural definition, someone who has become successful is being accused of the following, not legally, but in a public forum:

• Offending others by making donations to charities they themselves find appropriate, but which those others do not.
  
• Violating some as-yet unspecified Christian tenet by buying their meat from common sources.
  
• Being 'political' when in fact they are doing nothing beyond what every other business (and many individuals) does.
  
• Not publicly posting every donation they make with their own money, although no one else holding a similar corporate structure is required to do so.
  
• Using money from gays to harm them, despite the fact that they earned the money honestly.

Taken all together, this thread and the responses in it show me that it does indeed affect me whether or not gay marriage is formally legalized. It affects my rights and my ability to do business. It affects my name and my reputation. It affects every aspect of my life, because anything I do can and probably will be twisted around to demonize me, regardless of how innocuous or innocent my intentions were, simply because I may not agree with someone else's agenda.

Some time back I made a statement in another thread that was specifically on gay marriage that if the intent was to obtain equality, the methods being used were detrimental to the intent. I again state this. One cannot obtain equality by making others despise them in a society ruled by the people.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by IronArm

 

You really can't argue the history, during much of the time the Bible was being written homosexuality was the norm amongst many of the ancient Greeks instead of the exception. Young Spartan warrior males were often involved in homosexual relationships until they were old enough to marry. The Spartan women would have to shave their heads and act like young boys to attract a husband. At the time there really was a concern about confused sexual identity harming society.

These days the homosexuality nature versus nurture issue is no longer relevant. Homosexuals are a minority within society. People are born gay and no amount of behavioral conditioning is going to change them. There is no longer any behavioral choice that can be influenced. These days if a Christian feels they must bully a homosexual, it is an indication of a problem with the bully. Why in these modern times are they still conflicted? Are they having troubles with their own sexual identity? Were they feeling rejected because their own sexual advances disgusted a homosexual? Are the holy scriptures merely an ego device that lends support for bullying to satisfy their own hate and negative emotional state?

dude, A Christian CANNOT bully a homosexual or else he would not be a Christian. There is zero evidence that anyone was ever born gay, and lots of evidence people can revert back to hetero life and interaction. I will gladly play a science game with you if you want here on this forum.
You and I will google for proofs.
You back up why you think people are gay with science and I will give you my theories backed up with science.
1 rule.
If you use 15 sources but they are all linked to 1 guy and 1 study that is all it is, 1 guy and 1 study. The winner stays and the other has to publicly admit defeat.
I will help you before you decide. rethink what you think you know about genetics.

As for Christianity
It is not a social club where you sign up and pay dues.
You are or you are not a disciple of the Lord of Lords, King of Kings Yahshayah. The key is whether or not you are discipled and obedient. Everything else is posing for the camera.
He would handle it something like this.
He would call him in and comfort him, address the sins in a spritual truth given in a material world presentation to understand, heal and attend to his needs and send him on his way admonishing him to sin no more.

After that annee will come along, talk to the crowd and get offended by this reaction and begin teaching them what the Messiah would have taught if he was a pre surgery gay transvestite homosexual lesbian preacher (I am trying to be inclusive), it's a hobby for her.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Hey Redneck! No prob - - and hope we didn't get off on the wrong foot. I do respect your right to your point of view. And have nothing against your avatar name. I was just making an observation - - like if I'd name me "Hollywood Hippie" - - some might tend to prejudge on the name alone. Being Human.

Flat out - - my forum time is limited because I am Nanny to my 3 year old grandson who's daddy died of Leukemia before he was a month old. Its why my posts tend to be short and cryptic - - - and I don't always stay current in a discussion or have the ability to respond in a timely manner.

The living room is in "danger" right now as he is throwing his football in the air to see where it lands. Ouch! That hurt.

I do have XM radio and listen to several talk radio stations. This particular subject was discussed on one of the stations in length prior to it being a thread here.

OK - gotta go save the house now. (also there is a 10 year old granddaughter - - call me Soccer Gramma. Anyone got a cheap mini-van for sale? )

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Annee
It wasn't a generalization - - it happens to be factual.

...it may have been true of some but it certainly was not true of all... therefore, it was a generalization and when its claimed to be the whole truth, its a lie...

No - it would only be a lie if it were not true. Like I said my hobby is Cultural/Social anthropology. Of course Culture varies. Just because it doesn't apply to all does not make it a lie.

Cultures are still a part of history. Some very interesting "truths vs fiction" in our own cowboy cultural history. Fascinating stuff to read.

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by IronArm

 

You really can't argue the history, during much of the time the Bible was being written homosexuality was the norm amongst many of the ancient Greeks instead of the exception. Young Spartan warrior males were often involved in homosexual relationships until they were old enough to marry. The Spartan women would have to shave their heads and act like young boys to attract a husband. At the time there really was a concern about confused sexual identity harming society.

These days the homosexuality nature versus nurture issue is no longer relevant. Homosexuals are a minority within society. People are born gay and no amount of behavioral conditioning is going to change them. There is no longer any behavioral choice that can be influenced. These days if a Christian feels they must bully a homosexual, it is an indication of a problem with the bully. Why in these modern times are they still conflicted? Are they having troubles with their own sexual identity? Were they feeling rejected because their own sexual advances disgusted a homosexual? Are the holy scriptures merely an ego device that lends support for bullying to satisfy their own hate and negative emotional state?

Now saying this...As manna2 said, you have no absolute proof of homosexuality being genetic, and we have no proof of the opposite. Also note, just because the Greeks (which were considered heathen materialistic and self-indugent squanderers) were commonly homosexual, does not mean it was accepted in that premise by the rest of the non-hedonistic populace. As for sexual identity and such...thats just silly. I'm straight. No temptation to sacrilidge my body for homosexusal purposes. Thats me. I think its wrong, based in my Christian identity, and my personal knowlege of myself. As well, using the Bible as an ego device? Seriously? I don't have hate, I don't approve of certian lifestyles. Non-conformity and moral standing do not nessisarily sympathize with hate.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by schuyler

Nobody is asking about your personal situation or background. Nobody cares about another supposed "victim." This thread is not about you you you you. If you want to "boycott" some business, knock yourself out.

People have been trying to attacking that poster with "[your gay]" implications throughout this topic. You might have known that if you bothered to review the entire thing. But you didn't, you just decided to blame the person defending themselves.

How mature.
Are you proud of yourself?

Adifferentworld has been trolling this thread for pages. Talking smack and making arguments, but refusing to answer any direct questions or challenges directed at their smack-talk.

You want to defend that?

Every time I see this kind of attitude I want to go out and buy whatever it is being protested. Too bad there is no chic-fil-a near me. I'd go out and get lunch just to protest the protesters. God, there's not even a KFC near me. Burger King? Nope. Guess I'll have to settle for Chicken McNuggets.

I'm not surprised. Your words speak volumes about your lack of maturity.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Taken all together, this thread and the responses in it show me that it does indeed affect me whether or not gay marriage is formally legalized. It affects my rights and my ability to do business. It affects my name and my reputation. It affects every aspect of my life, because anything I do can and probably will be twisted around to demonize me, regardless of how innocuous or innocent my intentions were, simply because I may not agree with someone else's agenda.

Thank you for that, sums it up very nicely, there is not much to add as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by manna2

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by IronArm

 

After that annee will come along, talk to the crowd and get offended by this reaction and begin teaching them what the Messiah would have taught if he was a pre surgery gay transvestite homosexual lesbian preacher (I am trying to be inclusive), it's a hobby for her.

edit on 9-2-2011 by manna2 because: (no reason given)

I'm quite definitely enjoying this thread ...

reply to post by Byteman

Try growing up someday, it provides a world of insight.

I think you will find its the other way around.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Your post is just brimming with irony, you know.

Chck-fil-A has a right to donate to who they want.

And people have an equal right to raise a stink about it and call for boycott.

Who will win? Well, Chick-fil-A loses business, the protesters lose nothing. It all comes down to whether Chick-fil-A values profits or evangelism more.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...you've been on ats for 4yrs and have yet to create a thread about your chosen political focus... guess its really not all that important...

...as usual, no matter who asks you questions pertinent to this thread - you've gone out of your way to evade answering... its tiresome and dishonest...

A poster gives you a direct straight answer - - and you choose to reject it. Not my problem - - and says more about you then me.

There is valid reason I have never started a thread. However - I do not need to defend myself or my reasons.

Carry on . . .

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Chck-fil-A has a right to donate to who they want.

And people have an equal right to raise a stink about it and call for boycott.

Who will win? Well, Chick-fil-A loses business, the protesters lose nothing. It all comes down to whether Chick-fil-A values profits or evangelism more.

There you go.

Some times protests do bring about change.

Double post

reply to post by IronArm

Wow. This is actually a rediculous arguement. "Oh no! Someone doesn't support Liberal agenda! Lets get mad at them for not wanting to support something that goes against their Christian belief system!"

I'd say all of you who are using ridiculous and emotional hyperbole, are the ones getting mad.

Equal rights isn't a liberal agenda, it's a constitutional affirmation and guarantee.

Christ didn't say anything against homosexuals, or homosexual marriage, so what beliefs are you talking about?
Donating to anti-gay causes is hating your brother. Christ did not teach hate, he taught forgiveness.

Christ also said to cast off your possessions, but this family that owns this corporation, OWN a corporation....a profitable one.

It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to get into heaven. -Jesus

If you want to be perfect, go and sell EVERYTHING you have, and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven, and come follow me -Jesus

(quote sources Gospel of Matthew)

There is no way a profitable corporation, or a family that owns such a thing is acting Christian.

Pathetic.

You must be referring to your inability to break free of political ideologies like liberal and conservative.

Or maybe your referring to your lack of knowledge concerning Christ and Christianity.

They run the company as they see fit, they are not doing anything illegal by not giving money to support what they see as wrong.

No one really said they couldn't run their company as they see fit.
No one really said refusing to donate to pro-gay causes was illegal.

You lefties worry about rights for everyone... by stepping on our rights to stand for what we find to be right.

I'm not a liberal, or even a conservative. Unlike some of you sheep, I don't fit myself into pre-molded political ideal systems. And again, wanting equals rights isn't a liberal ideal. Nor is being pro-equality.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by adifferentbreed

 

Your post is just brimming with irony, you know.

Chck-fil-A has a right to donate to who they want.

And people have an equal right to raise a stink about it and call for boycott.

Who will win? Well, Chick-fil-A loses business, the protesters lose nothing. It all comes down to whether Chick-fil-A values profits or evangelism more.

I don't agree. Chick-fil-A will GAIN business. People who respect good values are just naturally more loyal. If Chick-fil-A were interested only in profits, they'd be open on Sunday. Yet they are percentage wise ahead of their fast food competitors even without Sunday hours.

Originally posted by Adamanteus

Not the lame marry an animal rant again.

I agree that that that is a lame example BUT he did bring up a valid point in that post of Polygamy

My stance is Equal Rights for all citizens. Meaning Equality to right of government contract for same benefits as straight couples.

So You would be just as upset if Chik fil A had donated money to an Anti Polygamy group?

Going off OP topic: Polygamy is a choice. (forced and underage marriage is separate from what Polygamy is)

Attraction to same sex is a God given birth right. It is not a choice (except if you are in the "middle of the scale" and are Bi)

Personally - - I have no problem with multiple marriage of any kind. As long as it involves consenting adults. I would venture to guess "group marriages" of all kinds are going on in every place in this country (and elsewhere).

However - - - making them legal is not the same as granting two people legal marriage rights.

Reason - - is - - legal benefits of marriage - would be complicated by more then two people.

Back on topic - - - "Right to Donate - - Right to Protest"

Click here for more information.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Who will win? Well, Chick-fil-A loses business, the protesters lose nothing. It all comes down to whether Chick-fil-A values profits or evangelism more.

A certain agenda will win. It all comes down to slowly but surely tightening the noose of 'hate' around Christianity. Generally speaking, and you will all have plenty of time to verify this in the coming months and years, its about creating legal precedent. It won't be immediate, it will happen inch by inch, until the day God's word can be triumphantly declared 'hate speech'.

It's about hatred and rebellion towards God and his Word, and the desire to wipe away everything Christian from existence and from memory.

It does remind one of another minority who are grievously wounded once a year by Christmas trees, so much so that we are having to remove them from public places, otherwise (heaven forbid) we might have a minority dying of chagrin and having to be reclassified as an endangered species.

Tolerance is a one-way street apparently, but generally speaking, after years of this, anything to stop the wretched moaning... so away with the trees, the donations and the Christians, and let the minorities rejoice!!!