What Came First, the Chicken or Chick-Fil-A?

I normally wouldn’t have gone to Chick-Fil-A today. Nothing against them, just don’t do a lot of fries and sweet tea. But if you’re gonna provoke a dishonest assault against freedom of expression and free enterprise, then it’s time for me to get some nuggets.

As a pastor, I haven’t campaigned against gay marriage. Instead, I have bit my tongue in an attempt to prove wrong all those who say that Christians hate homosexuals and discriminate against them. What I have said from the platform, repeatedly, is that our church is open to everybody regardless of who or what they claim to be. I happen to know for a fact that there are gays and lesbians who attend our church, and I have always treated them with love and respect, just like everyone else.

But then one day you realize that silence just isn’t going to work. The proponents of same-sex marriage are not merely content to express their opinions, but are rabidly and radically committed to extinguishing yours. Well, that’s not going to happen.

So let’s ask, what did Dan Cathy actually say? Did he say, “I hate homosexuals?” Did he say, “Homosexuals aren’t welcome at Chick-Fil-A?” Did he say, “I am absolutely against the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for same-sex couples?”

Nope. Here’s the article, from the Baptist Press. Read it for yourself. The quote that got him in trouble? Here you go: “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.”

Wow. What a hateful guy. But what also got him in trouble was a statement he apparently made on the radio, according to an L.A. Times article: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.” It was that statement which prompted the article’s author to label his  to an “outburst,” and later, “retrograde social prejudice.”

An outburst? Retrograde social prejudice? You see, I’ve learned something from having children: when you have no real argument, you inject emotion, throw around accusations, and manipulate language. My kids know how to take what I say and concoct incendiary conclusions to otherwise very lucid, normal statements. The strategy is this: when you can’t fight fair, raise the temperature and twist the truth.

That is how the supporters of same-sex marriage argue, much like my children. Here’s an example: I say, “I support traditional marriage.” They reply, “You hate homosexuals.” But I don’t hate homosexuals. Come to think of it, how dare you accuse me of such a thing. Who are you to judge my character without any knowledge of my heart or my behavior?

I say, “Marriage should be between one man and one woman.” You say, “You’re an angry, narrow-minded, backward, bigot because you don’t see it my way.” That’s the same type of hysterical reaction my 8-year old has when she’s out of rational arguments and just flat-out mad.

Take another example from The Huffington Post. The author accuses Chick-Fil-A of giving $5 million to, among other things, a “certified hate group.” A what? Who “certified” them as such? What criteria was used to “certify” their “hateful” status? Are we supposed to just accept the judgement of some unknown group upon another? But this counts as fair game for journalism.

So if we’re gonna have a fight, let’s have a fair fight. I have reasons why I believe marriage should always be recognized as one man and one woman. Here they are:

1) For the record, the traditional definition of marriage is not discriminatory against anyone. For example, neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals can marry a person of the same sex, or two people, an animal, or a close relative. As a homosexual, you have no more or less rights than a heterosexual.

2) If you alter the definition of marriage, you destroy the concept completely. If it is not between a man and a woman, then its between anyone and anyone. This is because the very logic for altering it to include homosexuals can be used to include any other arrangement. Thus, it becomes nothing and it means nothing. That is an undesirable outcome for society.

3) To alter the definition of marriage creates a horrible scenario for children. Every child should have a father and a mother. Two of me would be bad news for my kids, and quite frankly so would two of my wife. Men and women bring separate elements to the table. If you deny that then we’ve lost the ability to communicate. It is as obvious as the air we breathe. Two men or two women is not the same as a man and a woman when it comes to parenting. The counterpoint, then, is: But what about all the divorces, abusive and absent parents, and single parent households? Isn’t it better to have two healthy, loving people in the home, regardless of their gender? 

Of course there are deep problems in the execution of the traditional family model. People do selfish and evil things as parents which affect their children in a variety of ways. But problems existing in the execution of the ideal does not mean the ideal should be altered to be made more inclusive. If children don’t grow up with a mother and a father, they have missed something very important, regardless of the situation. The traditional definition of marriage affirms this ideal.

4) Then there is the theological argument. Among other things, one reason the Bible says that a man should marry a woman is because both of them bear the image of God in a unique way. When two people come together in marriage, the design is that they would each complement one another in a way that provides the complete picture of God’s masculine and feminine qualities, and do so as “one flesh.” When this works as it should, there is unspeakable beauty in it that cannot be replicated any other way. You may agree with that, you may not. But to call the position “hateful” is disingenuous and, once again, adding invective to a lucid and logical argument.

It’s not hard to be “for traditional marriage” and treat the homosexual with dignity, respect, and understanding. However, what’s good for society does not always fit the desires of the individual.

For many of the proponents of same-sex marriage, especially those who brought about what may be the best day in Chick-fil-A history, there is no real attempt to win the argument, because the argument can’t be won. They can only ultimately win the battle by name-calling, intimidating, and vilifying in an attempt to silence anyone and everyone who disagrees.

It’s easy to remain neutral and say, “There are problems on both sides.” It’s hard to take a position and say, “No, I think we can see clearly on this one.” Most people don’t have the time to voice their objection to the unjust threats to freedom of speech and free enterprise lobbed at Dan Cathy. But they gotta eat, which is why the lines are out the door at every Chick-fil-A around.

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “What Came First, the Chicken or Chick-Fil-A?

  1. Whew! Right on! For too long the tactic has been to scream foul and run away before real arguments can be made. I for one am sick and tired of being called a hater and a bigot. I know I’m no better than a homosexual. I’ve sinned too. My own sin. In my own life. And by God’s grace I’ve been forgiven and can extend that love to others in a life of sin. But no one ever wants to hear about the loving, caring Christians.

  2. I would just like to point out, you ask who certified the so called “hate groups”. The Southern Poverty Law Center, thats a very big name in civil rights circles, they’ve won many law battles regarding white supremacist and other so called hate groups. To continue on the same point you assert certain ideas like to alter the definition of marriage creates a horrible scenario fro children. Lets use your own logic here, who certifies this? Because most of the literature i’ve read and close experiences i’ve had its complete opposite. I know personally 5 homosexual couples with children. They’ve been together with each other longer than the average “traditional” marriage. Their kids are happy, successful, wonderful human beings. I know well more than 5 heterosexual couples that have children that are divorced, unhappy, children who grew up with problems leading from their parents bad marriage. Now to say all homosexual couples have perfect relationships and perfect children would be illogical, but to say that this automatically creates a problem for a child solely based on their parents sex is inane. Along the similar lines, you say if you alter the definition you destroy it completely? How can you verify this? has the recent states who’ve legalized gay marriage suddenly become rampant with crime and anarchy? I dont think so. Has Europe devolved to barbarians and animals for having most of the countries legalized gay marriage? Again, no. You must not read your bible very much nor live to the exact definition and wording of its law, because there are plenty of “rules” that christianity has changed or ignored over the years to accomodate a better life style for themselves. And finally, you say you dont hate them, i believe you. But you certainly dont treat them with respect, dignity or the rights as humans they deserve. We live in America, not Iran, our citizens rights are not derived nor taken away by what is said in your holy book.

  3. You are wrong on many, many levels. People, specifically proponents of same sex marriage or homosexuals, aren’t mad at CFA or Dan Cathy for what he said or for what he believes. They are upset because he actively and financially supports organizations that treat the LGBT community as diseased, broken, and perverse individuals that are not only a threat to our society but also to our children, the institution of marriage, and religious beliefs. He supports organizations as Kyle pointed out above, that are classified as hate groups by The Southern Poverty Law Center, and they would know. You criticized the Huffington Post for lazy journalism while being guilty of doing absolutely no research yourself.

    Dan Cathy and CFA actively support groups that spread vicious lies about the LGBT community. He actively supports groups that have actually gotten gay men killed in other countries.

    In other words, there is absolutely nothing Christ-like about the groups he supports. Some people would call that hypocritical.

    Below are the facts you didn’t look for.

    —-

    Chick-fil-A donated over $3 million to organizations like the Family Research Council and Exodus International between 2003 and 2009.

    In 2010 alone, Chick-fil-A donated over $1.9 million to anti-gay causes, more than any other year for which public records are available.

    In early 2011, Chick-fil-A came under fire for its donations and political ties to a number of anti-gay groups.

    In early 2011 Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy publicly announced that Chick-fil-A “has no agenda against anyone” and “will not champion any political agendas on marriage and family.”

    In 2012 Dan Cathy publicly states “Well, guilty as charged,” when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.” And then alluded to it being Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

    —-

    A breakdown of their donations in support of anti-gay organizations:

    The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2010 alone, WinShape received $8,067,161 from Chick-fil-A Inc.

    In 2010, WinShape donated $1,974,380 to a number of anti-gay groups:
    Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
    Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
    National Christian Foundation: $247,500
    New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
    Exodus International: $1,000
    Family Research Council: $1,000
    Georgia Family Council: $2,500

    A breakdown of those organizations will show you why CFA is accused of being anti-gay.

    MARRIAGE & FAMILY FOUNDATION (MFF)
    Since its inception it has been supported by anti-gay activists such as Exodus International’s Alan Chambers and Citizens for Community Values’ Barry Sheets.

    FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES (FCA)
    Every year, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) holds a National College Conference that Danny Burns, the conference Program Director, described as one in which “God freed some people from homosexuality, sexual sins, addictions and even ushered newcomers into His Kingdom.”

    The application to become an FCA Ministry Leader requires applicants to agree with the FCA’s Sexual Purity Statement, which condemns gays for engaging in an “impure lifestyle.”

    NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION (NCF)
    The National Christian Foundation (NCF) is a grant-making foundation that has made “hundreds of grants” to anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family, Family Life, and the Family Research Council.

    EXODUS INTERNATIONAL
    Exodus International is a major promoter of “ex-gay” therapy, the practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight. The organization refers to being LGBT as “perverse” and a form of “sexual brokenness.”

    Exodus International Board Member John Schmierer began his trips to Uganda in 2009, preaching alongside Nazi revisionist Scott Lively, spreading hatred of gay people to the people and leaders of the country. This directly led to their legislation requiring the execution of some gay people.

    FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL
    The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its propagation of known falsehoods about the LGBT community. For example, president Tony Perkins has a long history of false and inflammatory attacks, such as claiming that pedophilia is a “homosexual problem.”

    GEORGIA FAMILY COUNCIL
    The Georgia Family Council’s website contains posts arguing in favor of California’s Proposition 8 and criticizing Apple for removing from its “App Store” an application that promotes the argument that marriage equality is a threat to children and traditional marriage.

    Randy Hicks, president of the Georgia Family Council (GFC), is a vocal critic of marriage equality; he has argued gay marriage would harm children and undermine traditional marriages.
    ———

    The financial support of the above organizations is where the anger comes from. Not the beliefs of Dan Cathy. This isn’t a first amendment issue. This isn’t a religious issue. This isn’t a ‘pro-family’ issue. Nobody is seeking to deny Dan Cathy of any rights that any other American receives. HOWEVER, Dan Cathy IS seeking to deny some Americans the same rights that he received.

    If this was a pro-family issue then money would be put towards helping strengthen existing families not keeping families apart because just you don’t agree with the dynamic. This is an ‘anti-gay’ issue plain and simple.

    Your arguments about marriage are wrong as well. How you can compare two consenting adults who love each other to a man and an animal? Or a man and an inanimate object? How do you justify even writing that sentence? The church and god play no part in marriage. It is an agreement between two consenting adults and they do not need the church in any way shape or form. On top of that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the rights that other citizens enjoy. Look it up.

    And if you think marriage is anything more than a contract, try getting divorced and dividing up your possessions.

    Your argument about a father and a mother is offensive. This isn’t a perfect world and to say that a child raised by a single parent isn’t loved as much or doesn’t benefit as much from the exceptional strength of that one parent is just ignorant. You have a very narrow and exclusive point of view.

    Traditional marriage was an agreement between two men. It usually involved a dowry or some form of payment. It was used as a tool to solidify wealth, status or power. You think we should go back to that?

    The church gave up its right to anything called traditional marriage when it changed the rules for Henry VIII.

    There is no such thing as sanctity in marriage – just ask the 40+% of christians that get divorced. You are blatantly trying to justify denying a human being happiness because of sone age beliefs and you are doing it poorly.

    If you want to be pro-family you should be INCLUSIVE and help strengthen families that are built on love instead of being EXCLUSIVE and condemning families because you don’t like the dynamic. In other words, be more like Jesus and love your brother.

    • Chip – Thanks for your comments. Obviously we are far apart in our opinions on this subject. Your list of groups supported by Chick-fil-A was informative, but misses the point I was making. I was simply questioning the basis of a “certified hate group.” So, for example, if there is a group that sees homosexuality as a lifestyle that is wrong, again that doesn’t classify them, in my mind, as a “hate group.” I have had, and still have, homosexual friends, and have shared in their joys as well as their pain. But to say that I “hate” because I have substantive reasons why marriage should be recognized between a man and a woman only, to me, is just disingenuous. I don’t expect you to share my views, but I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read them and respond.

      Blessings,

      Tim

      • It seems to me that there are concepts here that you aren’t grasping. Nobody says that you ‘hate’ because of your views. They say you ‘hate’ because of your actions. Let me break this down for you. Nobody cares what you or Dan Cathy THINKS. People care what Dan Cathy DOES which is to financially support organizations that seek to harm – either physically or emotionally – people in the gay and lesbian community. Organizations that put forth lies and propaganda such as pedophilia is a gay problem or that gays should be exiled or that gays should be put to death – are considered hate organizations just like the KKK is for putting forth the notion that African-Americans should be killed or are less than human.

        You are trying to inject yourself into this because you are a christian and you identify with CFA. That is your first mistake. This has nothing to do with you or your faith or your first amendment rights. Do you understand?

        As far as marriage goes, that also has nothing to do with your religion. Marriage is a government sanctioned agreement that is in no way a means for procreation. Marriage has always been a contract and always will be. Some couples may want a religion involved but that is not a requirement anywhere. That is a CHOICE.

        Traditionally marriage was an agreement between two men where the girl was property exchanged for other property, social status, or political power. Religion has interjected itself into this equation, not the other way around.

        There are 2 ways to look at this issue.

        1. Homosexuals getting married doesn’t hurt you. It is constitutional. It makes them happy. It is the right thing to do.

        2. Homosexuals not getting married doesn’t hurt you. It is unconstitutional. It makes them sad. It is the wrong thing to do.

        That seems like a really easy choice for a christian, an atheist, a pagan, a jew, a muslim, A HUMAN.

        If you truly disagree with their lifestyle that is your business. As a christian that means you believe they will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity – which is about as bad a thing as you can imagine. So, denying them happiness in this life – which if you’re honest could be all we really have – is about as big an asshole thing as you can do.

        Then, on top of all that, it is unconstitutional to deny a person rights afforded to other people based on their race, sex, or sexual preference.

        So really, it is the least christ-like thing you can do which is about what I’ve come to expect from christians.

      • One question and I’m genuinely curious. How do you justify taking bits and pieces of the bible literally and then ignoring the rest? Like say, any of the rest of Leviticus for example.

      • Chip – Let’s relax a little bit here. This is exactly what I’m referring to. You feel justified to call me names and tell me its a mistake to involve myself in this issue simply on the grounds that I disagree with you and that it doesn’t involve me.

        I have every right to involve myself in this issue because this is my society as much as yours. What is accepted in our society affects me, my family, and my community. I have tried very hard to respectfully state my views and be respectful of yours, but you don’t seem to be returning the favor. So this probably isn’t the best format to have this discussion.

        I’ll even grant you the fact that many people have said and done rude and hurtful things in the name of Christ. But most are kind and gracious people. The rudest voices, however, tend to be the loudest.

        Regarding Leviticus, there are methods of Biblical interpretation that involve an understanding of genre, history, theology, and language, which can help you understand distinctives of different passages of Scripture. Amazon has a great selection, and as a curious person you’d probably enjoy reading about it.

        Blessings,

        Tim

      • I apologize for being rude. This issue is so absolutely obvious to me that I am frustrated at the lack of understanding and vision seen in our country and focused that on you. It isn’t your fault and I can neither make you see nor understand my point of view or the issue as a whole. Have a good day and try to make the world a little better today than it was yesterday.

  4. There are few more hateful, anti-freedom, anti-American groups than the Southern Poverty Law Center. Referencing the SPLC tells you everything you need to know. BTW, most of the convicted child molesters where I work (Lewis Prison) are gay as can be.

    • The American Psychological Association agrees, “Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children.” http://www.apa.org/index.aspx

      The stats are less than 1% of child molesters are gay where over 60% are christian. I’d be more worried about my children in a church than a gay bar.

    • Sam, that is shameful and out of line. It’s as unjustified and unsubstantiated as saying that because some Christians are homophobic, all Christians are homophobic. You do no justice to Jesus or the cause for a traditional marriage with such vitrolic nonsense.

      • Ma’am, it’s not nonsense, it’s just true. I am tired of seeing my country dismantled by liberals. Someone has to call them out, and I guess that’s me.

  5. Pastor Tim I totally like your stance. I also believe this issue has become way over blown, How can a comment that someone believes in “traditional” marriage, make them a hater? Then people want to leap to the supposed knowledge that a person who believes in traditional marriage is a supporter hate and posibly crimes is ridicolous. Then we have a mayor saying they will not allow Chick Filll A’s in their city wow. That is way worse then saying I believe in traditional marriage. Someone wants to not include a business and that is ok but it is discrimination to mention someones view based on a commitment to Christ. I also have gay friends that I love. I am obese which is a sin called gluttony and I thank God my fit gay friends aren’t screaming at me about my sin however I admit it is a sin and I want to do better to honor God whom I love. The point behind sharing is this before I was saved I was a drunk and I didn’t think drinking was bad so I sure didn’t want anyone screaming and yelling at me to quit drinking. I didn’t know I was sinning until I was convinced it was a sin. The truth is so many peoiple are unaware of their sin/problem. When a Christian tells a homosexual that they are sinning, they think it is nonsense and mean to say that. Let us as Christians continue to love and tell everyone what a sin is and why it is a sin and who has sinned and the law of the Lord will convict people and then we can tell them about the cure and the hope that is found in Jesus Christ. We will continue to believe God’s Word and know that there are a lot of sins and no sin is greater than another but I thank God that someone took the time to tell me what I was doing was wrong. I aslo am proud of you for how you handle the not so nice comments,may God continue to give you wisdom and self control.

  6. I have two members of my family who are now not speaking to me because #1. spoke out in opposition to a politician trying to ban a business because he doens’t like their political views and #2. For liking and sharing the above post. I tried to call these family members to have a civil, adult discussion of the matter and they refused to return my call and actually SPEAK to me about it. Instead they have chosen to ‘slam’ me personally on Facebook.

    While I agree that marriage should be between a man and woman, and I also believe that homosexuals should not be denied constitutional rights granted to other citizens. So how do we resolve this?

    To Chips point, if this is in fact the basis for the gay communities outrage, it would help if that view were actually expressed as such instead of what’s generally happening which is a bunch of finger pointing and name calling. Had my brother’s in law called me and expressed their point of view the way Chip explained, we might have been able to have a conversation about it. Instead they have chosen to ignore me and instead rage against me on Facebook.

    I am not anti-gay. I am not against two men or two women who love each other. I am not against them having equal rights. I am not FOR person or organization who seeks to persecute the gay community. I AM against any politician using his or her status as a government official to ban, harass or otherwise deny any person or organization the right to do business based on their political or religious beliefs. I would be just as outraged if the mayor of a concervative city wished to ban a restaurant because they were FOR gay marriage. It’s unconstitutional, it’s wrong, on either side of the isle.

    I support Dan Cathy’s right to state his beliefs. I may not agree with everything he says or the organizations he supports but he does have a right to speak.

  7. I wouldn’t go to Chick-fil-A anyway, because I’m a vegetarian, and I’m not holding my breath that most of their no-meat items are that healthy (as is the case with most fast food.) Were this not the case, I would boycott, and here’s why. Dan Cathy did not “just” say that he doesn’t think LGB
    T people should be allowed to marry. His company donated millions of dollars to organizations that objuect to this right. Why do I think this is wrong? Here goes. I promise to be respectful. Please regard caps as emphasis, and not yelling on my part:
    A) There are numerous ways to define “marriage”. Among those ways, you can define it in religious terms and in legal terms. These are two *VERY* different ways of looking at it. I am actually a HUGE proponent of religious freedom. If a church doesn’t believe in gay marriage, they should absolutely not be legally required to marry gay or lesbian couples. That said, if two gay individuals have no religious qualms about marrying each other, they should ABSOLUTELY NOT be prevented from doing such. There are instances where it’s absolutely right to legally prohibit citizens from doing something — assault, theft, etc. ***Because these actions harm others in some way***. If two gay people get married, IT DOES NOT HARM ANYONE IN ANY WAY. I challenge ANYONE to present an actual logical argument against my last statement. As powerful and beautiful a work as the Bible is (I honestly believe this) quotes from such DO NOT constitute logical arguments, so let’s not even go there. If I do not approve of gay marriage, I don’t have to attend gay weddings or associate with gay married couples — again NO HARM DONE TO ME.
    Now let’s look at what happens when gay couples aren’t allowed to be legally married. I have a perfect example: Brilliant scientist and American hero Sally Ride passed away recently. (For those who don’t know this, she was one of the first female U.S. astronauts, if not the first). Dr. Ride was a lesbian, committed to the love of her life for decades. Had she been heterosexual, and married to a man, NASA would have provided benefits to her widower. Since she happened to be gay, and in a relationship with someone she could not legally call her wife (note the word *legally* — they may not have even chosen to have a religious ceremony), her grieving partner gets NOTHING. This, to me is the definition of unfair .
    C) Now let’s look at the broader implications. Individuals are absolutely entitled to their own beliefs. When multimillion dollar organizations speak out loudly against providing basic legal rights to a group of people, this promotes a sense that said group is less than. This is dangerous. I don’t know the stats, but I do know that even today, in 2012, gay kids are beaten and kicked out onto the streets by their parents, simply because of who they are. Even today, gay kids KILL THEMSELVES because they’re forced to grow up in a society that tells them that they’re “sinners” or “deviants” or “faggots”. Organizations that try to deny gay people the right to marry who they love are promoting this dangerous (and by dangerous, I mean possibly resulting in physical harm to gay people) culture of “other” or “less than”.
    D)Okay, now let’s get personal. I’m going to tell you a true story. In 1997, I lost my sister Lorrie to cancer. To this day, I remember the look of absolute grief in my brother-in-law’s eyes — he had lost the love of his life. Part of him had died with her. In 1998, I happened to be in a production of “Company” where I met a very special man. We’ll call him Ted. When I first met Ted, I didn’t like him very much. He was a bit short with everyone around him, and not particularly social. He didn’t seem very open to meeting new people, so I kind of kept my distance at first. I found out a little bit into the rehearsal process that Ted had lost his partner Tom to cancer less than a year before, right after the last show he’d been in. Ted was distant and crabby because he was being eaten up inside. Ted was hard to get along with because he had lost his husband. I’ll say it again: husband. Husband. HUSBAND.
    Ted and I actually became good friends over the course of the production. Something about performing helped him find his light again, and I like to think I bring out the joy in people (okay, okay, maybe it was just that he was back performing… ;). Not long after “Company” closed, Ted met Frank. That’s when he *really* lit up. As their relationship grew, I watched him come out of his protective shell and let himself fall in love again. I’m actually tearing up just thinking about how beautiful it was. I went to their wedding (I’m calling it a wedding because tha’s what it was, even if it wasn’t lgally recognized as such) some months later, and I will NEVER forget the joy in both of their eyes. In short, Ted’s love for both Tom and Frank — for his first and second HUSBANDS was no less real than my love for Len. Anyway, there you have it. I hope I have respectfully offered food for thought. Much love… 🙂

    Like ·

    • Clarification: This is a copy of a something I posted to someone who knows me — I thought it applied here. Len is my husband. Sorry ’bout that!

    • Alicia Lippman, you appear very intelligent for your decision. You are looking at the situation of Gay Marriage with hugh amounts of emotion and logic. But you, like most that agree, have taken out all Wisdom and discernment for what is right. The promotion of Homosexual relationships is the degeneration of Society. What better way to promote homosexuality than through a legal Bond. It’s Rome all over again. I respectfully disagree. Just because I disagree, does that put me in the same boat as “Chick-Fil-A”? A good read “Under God” by Toby Mac Michael Tait.

      • Chris, you are absolutely entitled to your beliefs. OUr Bill of Rights expressly protects both your right to hold them and to profess them. However, a) those beliefs are a matter a of FAITH, not of logic and b) people who believe that being gay/gay marriage is NOT a sin are afforded the exact same protection (or at least according to our Constitution they should be). Our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Making gay marriage illegal because of the religious beliefs of SOME citizens is utterly unconstitutional and as ethically abhorrent is it would be to force churches that don’t want marry gay people to do so. You have every right to express your belief that gay marriage is wrong. You have NO right to try to legislate the actions of others based on your personal faith. It’s that simple — I don’t expect that this will register with you, but I hope some day it does. I mean no disrespect, and I sincerely wish you well.
        -Alicia

    • Alecia – Thanks for your articulate and thoughtful reply. Ted’s story is one that illustrates the need all of us have to experience love and companionship in this life.

      Here another way to look at it: If I had a friend, say his name was Bill, and Bill wanted to marry Jill, who happened to be his sister, many people would object on the basis that brothers marrying sisters is not something we want society to embrace. However, it is possible for Bill to truly be in love with Jill, for him to think that she is his soul mate. I can, on the one hand, truly believe that Bill loves Jill, and even be sympathetic to his romantic feelings on the basis that he has found someone. But I can also say that what Bill and Jill have, as brother and sister, should fall outside of what constitutes a marriage. You and I might agree that even though Bill and Jill are genuine in their love, some line must be drawn somewhere.

      Now you might say, “Tim, come on, a brother marrying a sister? Of course that’s wrong.” But based on what? Your idea of right and wrong? I’m sure that any brother/sister rights group could come up with a list of reasons why you’re “logic” is flawed.

      But let’s expand it even further. If marriage is based solely on love, why can’t father/daughter or mother/son marriages be acknowledged? Why can’t polygamy, which is so often mocked in our society, finally be taken seriously? Why can’t their love for each other constitute a marriage? After all, polygamy is widely practiced throughout the world.

      The point is, if “love” is the sole basis for marriage, then we’re going to have to really expand our horizons here in terms of marriage. But if not, then we’re all going to collectively have to come to an agreement in society as to what that basis is. I have offered a religious basis that transcends my faith, and instead intends to speak about human nature and what makes a society function coherently. You are welcome to bring an idea to the table as well, but then what it is based on, and is it greater than mine simply because it is non-religious? Also, what groups or arrangements would your definition of marriage foreseeably exclude? Chances are, some of them!

      Anyway, I do appreciate your comments. Its hard to communicate “tone” when writing, but want to assure you that I am trying to be as sensitive as possible in my reply. I’m probably going to move on from the discussion here, although others are welcome to chime in. Thanks for adding to the conversation, and may we all together come to know what is best!

      • Pastor Tim,
        Your reply was absolutely respectful toward me, so no worries there. I genuinely appreciate your effort not to come accross as angry or accusatory 🙂 On the incestuous v gay marriage argument: incest has a LOGICAL argument against it –the very clear danger of related parents being more likely to carry the same harmful genetic mutations that would be masked if passed on by only one carrier. Gay marriage has NO such logical argument against it. Also, my argument for or against gay marriage is not greater than yours because it is non-religious. My argument against GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION that is based on RELIGIOUS TENETS absolutely and inarguably IS. As you did, I want you to know that this post is written without anger or disrespect. And indeed, may we all come together in care for our fellow human being.
        All the best,
        Alicia

  8. Basically what I have been saying since this began – although not as eloquently!! Just because I disagree doesn’t mean I hate anyone. Ask my gay and lesbian friends about that.

  9. Ezra, an Old Testament prophet, was appalled when he saw the sin in his Nation. He tore his clothes, pulled his hair, and fell on his knees. Lifting his hands to God, he prayed, confessing the sins of his people and pleading with God for mercy. As he prayed, God moved, and soon “a very great congregation of men and women and children” gathered around him and wept very bitterly. The people decided then and there to undo the wrong things they had done and renew their covenant with God. (Ezra 9:3-10:4)
    When a great awakening hits America, our hearts will be changed. We will be ashamed of breaking our Marriage vows; of sexual perversion; of mistreating our unborn, our children, and our elderly; of turning our backs on the poor and destitute; about not teaching our children about God’s beautiful grace and power. There has never been a spiritual awakening that did not begin in fervent prayer. Human efforts are not sufficient. Only a mighty move of God’s spirit will cause people to look to him and be changed.

    From “Under God” by: Toby Mac Michael Tait

    • Chris, thank you. I get a little incensed when people attack our country, and also when they go after people I like and respect like Tim. One might ask what is the best way to defend these? Or for that matter how would Jesus want to be defended? Your point, in your last post was right on: legalizing marriage would promote the degeneration of our society. Further, allowing or facilitating same-sex marriage, or degeneration of any kind, would allow many other people to go in the wrong direction. People should be encouraged to follow Christ and dissuaded from abberrant passions. But the same could be said about dissuading people from following hatred. I don’t quite know how I would dissuade people from lost lifestyles other than to remain positive around them and treat them with kindness and respect while at the same time setting an example of happiness and, hopefully, honor (or at least a life that is relatively free from regrets). I would not want those involved in lost lifestyles to harden their hearts, especially from something I say. All that being said, for us to stand still and let these people go, without at least a word, is wrong.

  10. It seems to me that the rulers of Sodom and Gomorrah, embraced gay marriage, and we see what happened to those cities, what appalls me is that we (straights, gays, and even athiests,) get bent out of shape when one of our fellow human beings expresses their point of view, that may be different from our own, but would you stand idly by and let someone deny you the right to express yours? I think not, the issue is to respect others rights to have opinions, and their right to voice them, why is that that usually the person who screams racism or bigotry is usually the worst racist or bigot out there?

  11. I really enjoyed reading this, and I agree with your stance.

    However on a side note, when I saw the countless pictures of Christians going to Chick-Fil-A in masses it honestly disheartened me…

    As a church we can’t find the time, means, or love to come together in the name of Christ to do anything worthwhile for our society or in God’s name, but when it comes to chicken sandwiches and supporting traditional marriage everyone raises one banner.

    Like I said, I feel the same way that you do. This perhaps may be a poor way to equate the issue, but, just because I do not support the legalization of marijuana, does not mean that I “hate” people or friends that I know who use it. However, the average person, either supporter of traditional marriage or gay marriage, will not take the time or energy to research both sides of the argument; especially what the real Christian stance on it may be. Because of that, a hoard of Christians supporting this controversial issue I personally feel didn’t convey the right message, nor show love. If only that many people would go to the local homeless shelter, or even tithe regularly… just imagine what Christ could do through us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s